Milk in the Northeast and Other Marketing Areas; Recommended Decision and Opportunity to File Written Exceptions on Proposed Amendments to Marketing Agreements and Orders, 28590-28604 [06-4591]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
28590
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 71, No. 95
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1000
[Docket no. AO–14–A73, et al.; DA–03–10]
Milk in the Northeast and Other
Marketing Areas; Recommended
Decision and Opportunity to File
Written Exceptions on Proposed
Amendments to Marketing Agreements
and Orders
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule; recommended
decision.
AGENCY:
7 CFR
part
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
1001
1005
1006
1007
1030
1032
1033
1124
1126
1131
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Marketing area
AO Nos.
Northeast .............
Appalachian .........
Florida ..................
Southeast .............
Upper Midwest .....
Central .................
Mideast ................
Pacific Northwest
Southwest ............
Arizona LasVegas.
AO–14–A73.
AO–388–A14.
AO–356–A37.
AO–366–A43.
AO–361–A38.
AO–313–A47.
AO–166–A71.
AO–368–A34.
AO–231–A67.
AO–271–A39.
SUMMARY: This document recommends
changes to the fluid milk product
definition for all Federal milk marketing
orders and is based on the record of a
hearing held June 20–23, 2005, in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Specifically,
this document recommends maintaining
the current 6.5 percent nonfat milk
solids criteria and incorporating an
equivalent 2.25 percent true protein
criteria in determining if a product
meets the fluid milk product definition.
This decision also proposes to clarify
how milk and milk-derived ingredients
should be priced under all orders. In
addition, ‘‘drinkable’’ yogurt products
containing at least 20 percent yogurt,
keifir and products designed to be meal
replacements, regardless of packaging,
are proposed to be exempted from the
fluid milk product definition.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 May 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
Comments should be submitted
on or before July 17, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments (six copies)
should be filed with the Hearing Clerk,
Stop 9200–Room 1031, United States
Department of Agriculture, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–9200.
Comments may also be submitted at the
Federal eRulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov or by submitting
comments by e-mail to:
amsdairycomments@usda.gov.
Reference should be made to the title of
action and docket number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Henry H. Schaefer, Economist, USDA/
AMS/Dairy Programs, Upper Midwest
Milk Market Administrators Office,
Suite 210, 4570 West 77th Street,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435–5037,
(952) 831–5292. E-mail address:
hschaefer@fmma30.com; or Gino M.
Tosi, Associate Deputy Administrator,
USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Order
Formulation and Enforcement, Stop
0231–Room 2971–S 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–
0231, (202) 690–1366, e-mail address:
gino.tosi@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
administrative action is governed by the
provisions of Sections 556 and 557 of
Title 5 of the United States Code and,
therefore, is excluded from the
requirements of Executive Order 12866.
The amendments to the rules
proposed herein have been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. They are not intended to
have a retroactive effect. If adopted, the
proposed amendments would not
preempt any state or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they
present an irreconcilable conflict with
this rule.
The Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937 (Act), as
amended (7 U.S.C. 604–674), provides
that administrative proceedings must be
exhausted before parties may file suit in
court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may
request modification or exemption from
such order by filing with the
Department a petition stating that the
order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with
the order is not in accordance with the
law. A handler is afforded the
opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After a hearing, the Department
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would rule on the petition. The Act
provides that the district court of the
United States in any district in which
the handler is an habitant, or has its
principal place of business, has
jurisdiction in equity to review the
USDA’s ruling on the petition, provided
a bill in equity is filed not later than 20
days after the date of the entry of the
ruling.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Agricultural Marketing Service has
considered the economic impact of this
action on small entities and has certified
that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. For
the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, a dairy farm is considered a ‘‘small
business’’ if it has an annual gross
revenue of less than $750,000, and a
dairy products manufacture is a ‘‘small
business’’ if it has fewer than 500
employees.
For the purposes of determining
which dairy farms are ‘‘small
businesses,’’ the $750,000 per year
criterion was used to establish a
production guideline of 500,000 pounds
per month. Although this guideline does
not factor in additional monies that may
be received by dairy producers, it
should be an inclusive standard for
most ‘‘small’’ dairy farmers. For
purposes of determining a handler’s
size, if the plant is part of a larger
company operating multiple plants that
collectively exceed the 500-employee
limit, the plant will be considered a
large business even if the local plant has
fewer than 500 employees.
For the month of June 2005, the
month the hearing was held, 52,425
dairy farmers were pooled on the
Federal order system. Of the total,
49,160, or 94 percent were considered
small businesses. During the same
month, 1,530 plants were regulated by
or reported their milk receipts to their
respective Market Administrator. Of the
total, 847, or 55 percent were
considered small businesses.
This decision recommends
maintaining the current 6.5 percent
nonfat milk solids criteria and adding a
minimum true protein standard of 2.25
percent to the fluid milk product
definition. These criteria are not
intended to be absolute determinates of
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
whether a product meets the fluid milk
product definition. The form and
intended use of the product will be the
primary criteria used by the Department
for determining whether a product
meets the fluid milk product. The
proposed amendments also would not
consider beverages containing 20
percent or more yogurt as an ingredient
in the finished product or Kefir as
meeting the fluid milk product
definition. In addition, this decision
recommends removing the requirement
that meal replacements be packaged in
hermetically-sealed containers to be
exempt from the fluid milk product
definition.
The proposed amendments to the
fluid milk product definition set out the
criteria for determining if the use of
producer milk and milk-derived
ingredients in such products should be
priced at the Class I price. The
established criteria for the classification
of producer milk established are applied
in an identical fashion to both large and
small businesses and will not have any
different impact on those businesses
producing fluid milk products.
Therefore, the proposed amendments
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
A review of reporting requirements
was completed under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35). It was determined that
these proposed amendments would
have no impact on reporting, record
keeping, or other compliance
requirements because they would
remain identical to the current
requirements. No new forms are
proposed and no additional reporting
requirements are necessary.
This notice does not require
additional information collection that
needs clearance by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) beyond
currently approved information
collection. The primary sources of data
used to complete the forms are routinely
used in most business transactions. The
forms require only a minimal amount of
information which can be supplied
without data processing equipment or a
trained statistical staff. Thus, the
information collection and reporting
burden is relatively small. Requiring the
same reports for all handlers does not
significantly disadvantage any handler
that is smaller than the industry
average.
Interested parties are invited to
submit comments on the probable
regulatory and informational impact of
this proposed rule on small entities.
Also, parties may suggest modifications
of this proposal for the purpose of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 May 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
tailoring its applicability to small
businesses.
Prior documents in this proceeding:
Notice of Hearing: Issued April 6, 2005;
published April 12, 2005 (70 FR 19012).
Preliminary Statement
Notice is hereby given of the filing
with the Hearing Clerk of this
recommended decision with respect to
the proposed amendments to the
tentative marketing agreements and the
orders regulating the handling of milk in
the Northeast and other marketing areas.
This notice is issued pursuant to the
provisions of the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act and applicable rules of
practice and procedure governing the
formulation of marketing agreements
and marketing orders (7 CFR part 900).
Interested parties may file written
exceptions to this decision with the
Hearing Clerk, United States
Department of Agriculture, Room 1031Stop 9200, 1400 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20250–9200, by
the July 17, 2006. Six (6) copies of the
exceptions should be filed. All written
submissions made pursuant to this
notice will be made available for public
inspection at the office of the Hearing
Clerk during regular business hours (7
CFR 1.27(b)).
The hearing notice specifically
invited interested persons to present
evidence concerning the probable
regulatory and informational impact of
the proposals on small businesses. Some
evidence was received that specifically
addressed these issues, and some of the
evidence encompassed entities of
various sizes.
The proposed amendments set forth
below are based on the record of a
public hearing held in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, on June 20–23, 2005,
pursuant to a notice of hearing issued
April 6, 2005; published April 12, 2005
(70 FR 19012).
The material issues on the record of
the hearing relate to:
1. Amending the fluid milk product
definition.
Findings and Conclusions
This decision recommends
maintaining the current 6.5 percent
nonfat milk solids criteria and
incorporating an equivalent 2.25 percent
minimum true protein criteria in
determining if a product meets the fluid
milk product definition. This decision
proposes that for purposes of computing
the true protein or nonfat milk solids
content of a product, all milk-derived
ingredients be included.
This decision also proposes to exempt
from the fluid milk product definition
‘‘drinkable’’ yogurt products (often
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28591
referred to as smoothie products) that
contain at least 20% yogurt, Kefir, and
dietary products designed to be meal
replacements that are marketed to the
health care industry regardless of
packaging. As proposed, such products
would be considered Class II products
and the dairy ingredients included in
these products would be priced at the
Federal order Class II price.
Federal milk orders currently specify
that a fluid milk product shall include
any milk product in fluid or frozen form
that contains less than 9 percent
butterfat that is intended to be used as
beverages. The fluid milk product
definition contains a non-definitive list
of dairy products that are fluid milk
products. It also sets a maximum upper
limit on the butterfat contained in a
product of 9 percent and a lower limit
of 6.5 percent nonfat milk solids by
weight for a product to be considered a
fluid milk product. Dairy products that
do not fall within these limits are not
considered fluid milk products and the
milk used to produce these products are
classified in Class II, Class III or Class
IV depending on the form or purpose for
which the products are to be used.
Eleven proposals were published in
the hearing notice for this proceeding.
Proposals 1, 3, 4, and 6 were abandoned
at the hearing by there proponents in
support of other noticed proposals. No
further reference to these proposals will
be made.
A proposal published in the hearing
notice as Proposal 2, offered by Dairy
Farmers of America, Inc. (DFA), seeks to
amend the fluid milk product definition
to include any dairy ingredient,
including whey, when calculating the
milk contained in a product on a
protein-equivalent or nonfat solids
equivalent basis. DFA is a dairy farmermember owned cooperative whose
members milk is pooled throughout the
Federal order system.
H.P. Hood LLC (H.P. Hood), which
owns and operates milk processing and
manufacturing plants in the Eastern and
Midwest United States, is the proponent
of a proposal published in the hearing
notice as Proposal 5 that was modified
at the hearing. As modified, Proposal 5
seeks to amend the fluid milk product
definition to include any product that,
based upon substantial evidence as
determined by the Department, directly
competes with other fluid milk products
and that the Department must make a
written determination before any
product can be reclassified as a fluid
milk product.
A proposal published in the hearing
notice as Proposal 7 was offered by the
National Milk Producers Federation
(NMPF). NMPF consists of 33 dairy-
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
28592
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
farmer member cooperatives that
represent more than 75 percent of U.S.
dairy farmers. Proposal 7 seeks to
amend the fluid milk product definition
by removing the reference ‘‘6.5 percent
nonfat solids standard and whey,’’ and
adopting a 2.25 percent true milk
protein criteria. During the hearing,
DFA offered a modification to Proposal
7 by seeking to authorize the
Department to make an interim
classification determination for new
products that result from new
technology. The Department would then
convene a hearing to address the use of
the new technology in classification
decisions and make a final classification
determination for the new product
within one year.
A proposal published in the hearing
notice as Proposal 8 seeks to amend the
fluid milk product definition by
excluding yogurt-containing beverages.
This proposal was offered by The
Dannon Company, Inc. (Dannon), a
wholly owned subsidiary of The Danone
Group, which produces yogurt and fresh
dairy products in 40 countries including
the United States.
A proposal published in the hearing
notice as Proposal 9 also seeks to amend
the fluid milk product definition by
excluding drinkable food products that
contain at least 20 percent yogurt by
weight from the fluid milk product
definition. Proposal 9 was offered by
General Mills, Inc. (General Mills), a
food manufacturer that markets such
products as Yoplait yogurt and yogurtcontaining products in over 100
countries, including the United States.
A proposal published in the hearing
notice as Proposal 10 was offered by the
Novartis Nutrition Corporation
(Novartis). Novartis is a company that
develops and manufactures products,
including milk based products,
designed to meet specific nutritional
needs. Proposal 10 seeks to amend the
fluid milk product definition by
removing the 6.5 percent nonfat milk
solids standard and excluding formulas
prepared for dietary use.
A proposal published in the hearing
notice as Proposal 11 seeks to amend
the fluid milk product definition by
excluding healthcare beverages
distributed to the healthcare industry.
Proposal 11 was offered by Hormel
Foods, LLC (Hormel), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Hormel Foods Corporation
and manufacturer of a variety of food
products primarily for the health care
industry.
A witness appearing on behalf of
National Milk Producers Federation
(NMPF) testified in support of Proposal
7. The witness testified that Proposal 7
would close loopholes in the current
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 May 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
fluid milk product definition that have
allowed products developed as a result
of new technology to avoid
classification as a fluid milk product.
The witness said that the 6.5 percent
nonfat solids standard should be
eliminated and replaced with a 2.25
percent protein standard that would
also include whey proteins in
determining if the product meets the
protein standard. The witness stressed
that whey proteins should be defined as
whey proteins that are a by-product of
the cheese making process. The witness
was of the opinion that adoption of
Proposal 7 would not alter the
classification of any product currently
being marketed.
The NMPF witness stressed that
Federal order regulations have always
adapted to marketing conditions and
that the current fluid milk product
definition should be amended to reflect
changes in market conditions brought
about by changes in technology. The
witness testified that technology has
evolved such that milk can now be
separated into numerous components
that can be recombined to create a vast
number of new milk products. The
witness argued that new technology has
enabled manufacturers to manipulate
milk components, such as removing
lactose or substituting whey for other
milk solids, to create new products that
contain less than 6.5 percent nonfat
milk solids. This enables manufacturers
of the new products to avoid
classification of the new product as a
fluid milk product even though the form
and use does not differ from what is
currently considered as fluid milk
products.
The NMPF witness testified that Carb
Countdown, a product manufactured
by the H.P. Hood Company, contains
whey and has a reduced lactose content
that results in its composition below 6.5
percent nonfat milk solids standard.
According to the witness, two market
research studies suggest that the product
is similar in form and use to traditional
fluid milk. Relying upon a market study
conducted by IRI, a market research
firm, the witness related that 98.4
percent of Carb Countdown sales are
purchased as a substitute for fluid milk
while only 1-percent of its sales are
represented as an expansion of the fluid
milk market.
The NMPF witness was of the opinion
that classifying a product on the basis of
protein is appropriate because protein is
the highest valued skim component in
the marketplace. The witness testified
that a 2.25 percent protein standard is
the appropriate equivalent of the current
6.5 percent nonfat milk solids standard.
The witness asserted that protein has
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the most value to producers, processors
and consumers because it contributes to
milk nutrition, flavor and texture. While
the witness was of the opinion that all
dairy-derived ingredients should be
used in computing the true protein
standard of a product, the witness did
not believe whey and whey product
ingredients should be priced at the Class
I price. The witness maintained that the
use of whey and whey products should
not exclude a product from the fluid
milk product definition because
manufactures are using whey in their
new products to avoid a fluid milk
product classification. The witness also
noted that instead on relying upon the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
standard, the Department should
provide its own definition of whey.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of NMPF reiterated the positions
they testified to at the hearing. The brief
asserted that adoption of a protein
standard would close regulatory
loopholes that prevent products
developed as a result of new technology
from avoiding classification as a fluid
milk product. According to the brief,
adoption of a true protein standard
merely changes the way milk proteins
are accounted for and would not change
the classification of any product.
However, these changes would capture
those products currently formulated to
avoid being classified as a fluid milk
product.
A witness from Dairy Farmers of
America (DFA), appearing on behalf of
DFA and Dairylea Cooperative, Inc.,
(DLC), testified in support of NMPF’s
Proposal 7 and Proposal 2. DFA is a
dairy-member owned cooperative with
12,800 member farms located in 49
states. DLC is a dairy-member owned
cooperative with 2,400 member farms
located in seven states.
The DFA/DLC witness was of the
opinion that the purpose of the hearing
was to refine the fluid milk product
definition to reflect current market
conditions brought about by
technological innovations to ensure that
dairy farmers are equitably paid for their
milk. The witness testified that dairy
processing technology, such as ultra
filtration and milk component
fractionalization, has enabled new
products to be developed that were not
foreseen when the current classification
definition was last considered.
The DFA/DLC witness testified that
the current fluid milk product definition
does not recognize the value of dairy
proteins in the development of new
products and therefore does not classify
and subsequently price these new
products appropriately. The witness
claimed that manufacturers formulate
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
their products so as to contain less than
6.5 percent total nonfat milk solids to
avoid a Class I use of milk even though
these products compete directly with
and are substitutes for fluid milk and
fluid milk uses.
The DFA/DLC witness was of the
opinion that the form and use of a
product should be the primary factor in
determining product classification. The
witness said that secondary criteria used
to make classification determinations
should include such factors as: Product
composition, a specific but not
exclusive list of included and excluded
dairy products, product substitutability
and enhancement of producer revenue.
The witness argued that eliminating the
current total nonfat milk solids standard
and replacing it with an equivalent milk
protein standard would better reflect the
demand for dairy proteins in the
marketplace.
The DFA/DLC witness offered a
modification to Proposal 7 that the
witness said would provide the
Department with latitude for classifying
future products which are a result of
new technology. The witness explained
that the modification would allow the
Department to make an interim
classification decision for a new product
and then have up to one year to hold a
public hearing to determine the
appropriate permanent classification.
The DFA/DLC witness also testified in
support of Proposal 2. The witness said
that its adoption would recognize the
importance of dairy proteins in the
marketplace by including all dairy
protein sources, including whey and
whey products, in computing the
products protein content. However, said
the witness, while whey and whey
products would be used in classification
determinations, those ingredients
should not be priced as Class I.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of DFA/DLC reiterated their
support for adopting a protein standard.
The brief reiterated their claim that new
technology has enabled some products
that contain less than 6.5 percent nonfat
milk solids to be classified at a lower
use-value than competitors in the
market. The brief maintained that
adoption of a protein standard would
more adequately identify products that
should be classified as fluid milk
product’s in light of new fractionation
technology.
A witness appearing on behalf of O–
AT–KA Milk Products Cooperative, Inc.
(O–AT–KA) testified in support of
Proposals 2 and 7. O–AT–KA is a
cooperative owned by the dairy farmer
members of Upstate Farms Cooperative,
Inc.; Niagara Milk Cooperative, Inc. and
Dairylea Cooperative, Inc. The witness
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 May 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
was of the opinion that the development
of new technology necessitates a change
to the fluid milk product definition.
However, the witness cautioned that
changes should not capture all
beverages which contain milk solids as
fluid milk products because not all
milk-containing beverages compete with
fluid milk.
The O–AT–KA witness asserted that
Proposal 7 should not be thought of as
a fundamental change to the current
standard; rather that the proposed true
protein standard of 2.25 percent is an
equivalent to the current 6.5 percent
nonfat milk solids standard and should
be considered as a needed clarification
brought about by new technological
advances in milk processing. According
to the witness, the proposed 2.25
percent standard recognizes protein as a
highly-valued ingredient in milk
products and that products with less
than 2.25 percent protein would remain
exempt from fluid milk product
classification. The witness also
advocated the adoption of Proposal 2
which would include whey and whey
products in the computation of the
protein percentage of the product but
would not price the whey ingredients at
Class I prices.
A post-hearing brief, submitted on
behalf of O–AT–KA, reiterated their
support for Proposal 7. The brief
claimed that the adoption of the protein
standard would increase the use of dairy
ingredients in beverages that are not ‘‘in
the competitive sphere of the traditional
milk beverages,’’ thus increasing
producer revenue. The brief also
supported DFA/DLC’s modification to
Proposal 7 giving the Department
authority to make an interim
classification decision if a new product
is a result of new technology.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of Select Milk Producers, Inc.
(Select) and Continental Dairy Products
(Continental) expressed support for
adoption of a protein standard as a
component of the fluid milk product
definition. According to the brief, Select
and Continental are dairy-farmer owned
cooperatives that market milk on
various Federal orders. The brief argued
that adoption of a protein standard is a
needed change to reflect current
manufacturing technology and does not
fundamentally alter current regulations.
The brief stressed that milk proteins are
valuable ingredients in the market and
that classification and pricing
determinations should be reflective of
this.
A witness appearing on behalf of H.P.
Hood testified in opposition to any
changes to the fluid milk product
definition. The witness was of the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28593
opinion that the fluid milk product
definition should not be amended in a
manner that would classify more dairy
products as fluid milk products unless
data is provided which would conclude
such products compete directly with
fluid milk and such amendments would
enhance producer revenue.
The H.P. Hood witness asserted that
if Proposal 7 was adopted and resulted
in the reclassification of some products
as fluid milk products, the change
would only affect a small number of
products and the enhancement of
producer revenue would be minimal. If
ingredient substitution for milk
occurred as a result of adopting other
proposals, the witness said, producer
revenue could actually decrease. The
witness was of the opinion that
adoption of proposals which broaden
the fluid milk product definition would
stifle product innovation and discourage
the use of dairy-derived ingredients
because of the resulting increased costs
to the manufacturer. These results, the
witness said, should not be encouraged
by the Federal milk order program.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of H.P. Hood reiterated their
opposition of Proposal 7. The brief
maintained that no disorderly marketing
conditions exist to warrant a change to
the fluid milk product definition and
that proponents of the protein standard
failed to meet the burden of proof
required by the AMAA to make a
regulatory change. The H.P. Hood brief
reviewed many factors used by the
Department in previous classification
decisions to determine the proper
classification of Class I products. Their
list included, but was not limited to,
demand elasticities, enhancement of
producer revenue and product
competition. The brief stated that
proponents failed to provide adequate
data addressing these factors or prove
that disorderly marketing conditions
exist to warrant a change, and urged the
Department to terminate the proceeding.
A witness appearing on behalf of
Leprino Foods Company (Leprino)
testified in opposition to the adoption of
the 2.25 percent protein standard
contained in Proposal 7. According to
the witness, Leprino operates nine
plants in the United States that
manufacture mozzarella cheese and
whey products. The witness was of the
opinion that a protein standard would
reclassify products such as sport and
protein drinks and yogurt smoothie
products that are formulated with
ingredients such as whey and whey
products as fluid milk products. The
witness stressed that broadening the
fluid milk product definition to account
for all dairy derived ingredients could
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
28594
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
lessen the demand for such ingredients.
The witness speculated that
manufacturers may seek out other less
costly non-dairy ingredient substitutes
which would result in decreased
producer revenue.
A witness appearing on behalf of
Dannon testified in opposition to
Proposals 2 and 7. The witness was
opposed to the adoption of a protein
standard and to the inclusion of whey
when calculating the nonfat milk solids
content of a product because, the
witness said, it was not the original
intent of the fluid milk product
definition to include these milk-derived
ingredients. The witness believed that
adoption of a protein standard would
cause more products to be classified as
fluid milk products even though they do
not compete with fluid milk. The
witness argued that protein is not a
major component of fluid milk products
and therefore using a protein standard
would not be appropriate for making
classification determinations. The
witness speculated that if a protein
standard was adopted, it could stifle
product innovation or cause food
processors to use non-dairy ingredients
in their food products. The witness also
opposed Proposal 2 seeking to include
whey proteins in determining the
protein content of a product. The
witness said that if whey proteins are
included, manufacturers may look for
less expensive non-dairy ingredients to
be used as a viable substitute.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of Dannon reiterated their
opposition to the adoption of a protein
standard claiming that adequate
justification for such a change was not
given by proponents at the hearing and
that the mere ability to test for milk
proteins does not justify its adoption.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of the National Yogurt
Association (NYA) expressed opposition
to Proposal 7. According to the brief,
NYA is a trade association representing
manufacturers of live and active culture
yogurt products and suppliers of the
yogurt industry. The brief claimed that
proponent testimony was inconsistent
regarding the impact on product
classification of their proposals and
stated that if the 2.25 percent protein
standard were adopted, at least one
yogurt-containing product would be
reclassified as a fluid milk product. The
brief also asserted that proponents did
not provide a clear picture of how
Proposal 7 would be implemented.
Specifically, the brief noted that the
following were not addressed: (1) How
wet and dry whey would be handled, (2)
how whey from cheese production
would be differentiated from whey from
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 May 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
casein production, and (3) how products
that meet the proposed 2.25 percent true
protein standard and contain whey and
other proteins would be classified and
priced was not addressed.
The NYA brief speculated that
including whey in the protein
calculation would lead to more products
being classified as fluid milk products
and cause manufacturers to seek out less
costly non-dairy ingredients. The
potential loss to producer revenue by
substitution with non-dairy ingredients,
concluded the brief, is not supported by
the record.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of National Cheese Institute (NCI)
expressed opposition to Proposal 7 and
claimed that its adoption would stifle
the use of dairy-derived ingredients,
particularly whey proteins. According
to the brief, NCI is a trade association
representing processors, manufacturers,
marketers and distributors of cheese and
related products. NCI claimed that
proponents of Proposal 7 did not
identify any specific marketplace
disorder that would be corrected by the
adoption of a protein standard or list
any product that would be reclassified
if the fluid milk product definition were
amended. The brief reviewed previous
rulemaking decisions where proposals
were denied because proponents failed
to demonstrate that disorderly
marketing conditions were present.
The NCI brief stressed that use of
dairy-derived ingredients in a product
should not automatically qualify a
product as a competitor of fluid milk or
that their classification in a lowervalued use negatively affects producer
revenue. The brief further maintained
that proponents did not adequately
address why whey proteins should be
included in determining if the product
met the proposed protein standard for a
fluid milk product and why whey
should be priced at the Class I price.
The brief concluded that whey should
be excluded from the fluid milk product
definition because its inclusion would
lead to products being classified as fluid
milk products even when they do not
compete with fluid milk.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of Sorrento Lactalis, Inc.
(Sorrento) objected to the adoption of a
protein standard. According to the brief,
Sorrento is a manufacturer that operates
five cheese plants throughout the
United States. The brief stated that
adoption of a protein standard as part of
the fluid milk product definition would
reduce the demand for dairy
ingredients, especially whey proteins,
which in turn will result in increased
costs to manufacturers and reduced
producer revenue.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
A witness testifying on behalf of H.P.
Hood was of the opinion that if the
Department found changing the fluid
milk product definition was warranted,
adoption of a modified Proposal 5
would be appropriate. The witness said
that adoption of Proposal 5 would
provide the Department with standards
to determine if a dairy product with less
than 6.5 percent nonfat milk solids
competes with and displaces fluid milk
sales which would justify classification
of the product as a fluid milk product.
The witness also noted that if Proposal
5 was adopted, a new product with less
than 6.5 percent nonfat milk solids and
route distribution in a Federal milk
marketing area of less than 3 million
pounds would be exempted from
classification as a fluid milk product.
This distribution criteria, the witness
explained, would allow manufacturers
to test market a new product with the
assurance that it would not be classified
as a fluid milk product until the
distribution threshold was exceeded.
A witness appearing on behalf of
Leprino testified in support of Proposal
5. The witness was of the opinion that
fluid milk products should only be
those products that meet the FDA
standard of identity for milk and
cultured buttermilk and products that
compete with milk and cultured
buttermilk. The witness testified that
the fluid milk product definition is
currently too broad and as a result, has
lessened the demand for dairy
ingredients in new non-traditional dairy
products because of the possibility of
being classified as a fluid milk product.
The witness argued that many of these
new products do not compete for sales
with fluid milk and their use of dairyderived ingredients should not qualify
them to be defined as a fluid milk
product.
The Leprino witness explained that
advances in technology have allowed
the creation of dairy-derived ingredients
through milk fractionation. The witness
stated that the use of dairy-derived
ingredients has made it difficult to
classify products by their components.
According to the witness, dairy
manufacturers are avoiding investing in
some product innovation because of the
regulatory burden and increased costs
that are associated with manufacturing
a fluid milk product.
A witness testifying on behalf of DFA/
DLC was opposed to the adoption of
Proposal 5. The witness said that
Proposal 5 would place an undue
burden on the Department in making
classification determinations and would
also extend Class II classification to
more products, neither of which the
witness supported. The post-hearing
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
brief submitted by DFA/DLC reiterated
their opposition.
A witness appearing on behalf of
Bravo! Foods International Corporation,
Lifeway Foods, Inc., PepsiCo, Starbucks
Corporation and Unilever United States,
Inc., testified in opposition to all
proposals that would reduce or
eliminate the 6.5 percent minimum
nonfat milk solids standard, adopt a
protein standard, or include whey in
determining the nonfat milk solids
content of a product. Hereinafter, these
companies are referred to collectively as
Bravo!, et al.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of Bravo!, et al., urged the
termination of the proceeding except for
the portion addressing the exemption of
yogurt and kefir products from the fluid
milk product definition. Bravo!, et al.,
asserted that the hearing record does not
support adoption of a protein standard.
The brief stated that decisions to amend
Federal order provisions are not made
without clear evidence of disorderly
market conditions, the potential
shortage of milk for fluid use, or
lowering of producer revenue. The brief
also discussed letters sent to the
Department by producers and
manufacturers which urged that a
hearing be postponed because more
analysis and market data was needed to
justify amending the current fluid milk
product definition. Bravo!, et al., argued
that conducting the hearing was
premature and without adequate study
and market data on the proposals that
are under consideration. According to
the brief, more time was needed to
accurately determine the impact of new
milk products on the marketplace.
The Bravo!, et al., brief summarized
hearing testimony from previous
Department rulemaking decisions where
no changes were recommended due to
a lack of evidence to support a
regulatory change. The brief asserted
that this proceeding also lacked
evidence of disorderly marketing
conditions which would warrant a
change to the fluid milk product
definition. According to Bravo!, et al.,
proponents did not provide evidence of
disorder in the marketplace nor did they
substantiate their claims that products
currently in the market would not be
reclassified if a protein standard was
adopted. On the basis of such
conditions, the brief concluded that the
current fluid milk product definition is
adequate.
If the Department did not terminate
the proceeding, the Bravo!, et al., brief
recommended that the 6.5 percent
nonfat milk solids standards remain,
that the computation of nonfat milk
solids not be made on a milk
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 May 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
equivalency basis, and that whey and
whey ingredients be excluded from the
computation.
A witness appearing on behalf of
Fonterra USA, Inc. (Fonterra) testified in
opposition to proposals that would
include milk protein concentrates
(MPCs) in determining if the product
met the protein standard of the fluid
milk product definition. Fonterra is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Fonterra
Co-operative Group Limited, a New
Zealand based dairy cooperative owned
by 12,000 New Zealand dairy farmers.
Fonterra operates plants within the
United States that produce, among other
things, MPCs. The witness stressed that
changes to the fluid milk product
definition would increase ingredient
costs, discourage manufacturing
companies from using dairy ingredients
in their products, and force those
companies to seek other less costly
substitutes such as soy and soy
products.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of Fonterra reiterated their
objection to changing the nonfat milk
solids standard and predicted that
adoption of a protein standard would
make classification decisions
unnecessarily complicated without
providing additional benefits to
producers. The brief asserted that the
hearing record did not contain a
sufficient economic analysis on the
possible benefits that adopting a protein
standard would have on producer
revenue or its impact on the dairy
industry.
The Fonterra brief speculated that
adoption of a protein standard would
increase the market price for milk
proteins, discourage new product
development and encourage the
substitution of producer milk with nondairy ingredients. The brief noted that
the annual growth rate of soy and soy
products in nutritional products from
1999 to 2003 was 16.5 percent, while
the growth of milk proteins in
nutritional products only increased 10.1
percent over the same time period. The
brief predicted that if protein prices rise
as a result of the adoption of a protein
standard, the growth of soy proteins will
likely increase because they could be
substituted for more costly milk
proteins.
The Fonterra brief also stated that the
hearing record does not reveal disorder
in the market by the application of the
current fluid milk product definition
and therefore concluded that amending
the fluid milk product definition is not
justified. The Fonterra brief also argued
that proponents did not provide
adequate reasoning for including whey
proteins in determining if a product met
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28595
the protein standard but not pricing
whey proteins the same as other milk
proteins. Furthermore, the brief stated
that proponents did not propose a
method for differentiating between
whey proteins resulting from cheese
production and whey proteins from
other sources.
A witness appearing on behalf of the
American Beverage Association (ABA)
testified in opposition to all proposals
seeking to amend the fluid milk product
definition. ABA is a trade association
that represents beverage producers,
distributors, franchise companies and
their supporting industries. The witness
was of the opinion that the current fluid
milk product definition already
properly classifies dairy products and
that there is insufficient evidence to
warrant any changes. The witness
claimed that any change would broaden
the fluid milk product definition to
include products that contain only
small amounts of milk. The witness
argued that many new beverage
products which contain small amounts
of milk or milk ingredients do not
compete with fluid milk but do compete
with soft drinks, juices and bottled
water. The witness asserted that
amending the fluid milk product
definition to include some dairy
ingredients not currently considered
would increase manufacturers cost of
production, result in stifled innovation
of new products and encourage the use
of non-dairy ingredients as substitutes
for milk-derived ingredients.
A witness appearing on behalf of Ohio
Farmers Union (OFU) testified in
opposition to any change to the fluid
milk product definition. The witness
testified that the primary purpose of the
Federal milk marketing order program
was to provide consumers with a
reliable supply of safe and wholesome
milk. The witness asserted that MPC’s,
caseinates, whey proteins and other
similar milk-derived ingredients have
functional and nutritional
characteristics different than fluid milk.
Accounting for those ingredients in the
fluid milk product definition, the
witness said, would undermine the goal
of the Federal milk order program. The
witness stressed that if the fluid milk
product definition was amended,
consumer confidence in the long
established perception of milk as a
fresh, pure and wholesome beverage
would be diminished and would thus
threaten the economic viability of
domestic producers.
A witness appearing on behalf of the
Milk Industry Foundation (MIF)
testified in opposition to amending the
fluid milk product definition. According
to the witness, MIF is an organization
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
28596
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
with over 100 member companies that
process and market approximately 85
percent of the fluid milk and fluid milk
products consumed nationwide. The
witness stated that simply because a
beverage contains milk or other dairyderived ingredients does not prove the
proponents claim that those products
compete with fluid milk or that such
competition lowers producer revenue.
The MIF witness asserted that
previous Federal milk order rulemaking
decisions have required data and
analysis to prove that an amendment is
warranted. According to the witness, the
proponents of proposals for changing
the fluid milk product definition did not
provide such data and analysis. Along
this theme, the witness said that
proponents should have provided data
such as the market share held by
products that do not fall under the
current fluid milk product definition
but would be included under any
proposed change, cross price elasticity
of demand analysis of products which
meet the existing fluid milk product
definition and of products that would be
classified as a fluid milk product if any
of their proposals were adopted, and an
own-price elasticity of demand analysis
for products that would be reclassified.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of MIF reiterated their opposition
to any changes to the current fluid milk
product definition. The brief urged that
if the Department does amend the fluid
milk product definition, it should
exclude all whey-derived protein
products in determining if a product
meets the fluid milk product definition.
The brief stated that MIF has
continuously opposed a hearing to
consider amending the fluid milk
product definition because they are of
the opinion that not enough evidence is
available to warrant a change. The brief
maintained that proponents did not
offer adequate data at the hearing to
demonstrate that there is disorder in the
marketplace that can be remedied by
adoption of a protein standard.
The MIF brief expanded their
testimony by citing numerous
rulemaking decisions which denied
proposals on the basis that adequate
evidence was not presented to warrant
amendments to order provisions. MIF
stressed that the mere existence of
beverages which contain dairy-derived
ingredients is not evidence of
marketwide disorder
A witness appearing on behalf of the
National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC)
testified in opposition to all proposals
that would amend the fluid milk
product definition. The witness testified
that MPCs do not meet FDA’s Generally
Recognized as Safe (GRAS) standards as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 May 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
legal food ingredients. Furthermore, the
witness said, MPCs have not been
subjected to scientific testing to
determine if they are safe for human
consumption and should not be allowed
in milk products.
A witness appearing on behalf of
Public Citizen testified in opposition to
proposals that seek to amend the fluid
milk product definition. According to
the witness, Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization
with approximately 150,000 members.
The witness was opposed to any change
in the fluid milk product definition that
would, in the witnesses’ opinion,
encourage the use of MPCs.
Two Pennsylvania dairy farmers
testified in opposition to any change to
the fluid milk product definition. The
producers opposed all proposals that
would allow the use of caseinates and
MPCs in fluid milk products. They
asserted that MPCs are not allowed in
the production of standardized cheese
and should also not be allowed in the
production of fluid milk products.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of the American Dairy Products
Institute (ADPI), an association
representing manufacturers of dairy
products, offered support for amending
the fluid milk product definition to
include milk beverages that compete
directly with fluid milk. However, the
brief cautioned against developing a
fluid milk product definition that would
include non-traditional beverages and
smoothie type (yogurt-containing
beverages) products. The brief
recommended that an economic study
be conducted to determine the possible
impacts of the proposed changes before
action is taken to amend the fluid milk
product definition.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of General Mills contended that
the fluid milk product definition should
not be amended because proponents did
not provide sufficient evidence or data
that would justify the change. The brief
maintained that the hearing record is
not clear on how proposals would be
implemented or on the impact to
producers, manufacturers, and
consumers if the protein standard was
adopted. General Mills contended that
before a change is made, the Department
should conduct an economic analysis to
evaluate how protein and products are
competing in the marketplace and how
the adoption of a protein standard
would impact the marketplace. If a
protein standard was recommended for
adoption, General Mills recommended
that whey not be included in the protein
calculation, or if whey is included, that
a 2.8 percent protein standard be
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
adopted in order to maintain the status
quo.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of New York State Dairy Foods,
Inc. (NYSDF) opposed amending the
fluid milk product definition. According
to their brief, NYSDF is a trade
association representing dairy product
processors, manufacturers, distributors,
retailers and producers in the Northeast
United States. The brief argued that
products produced with the use of new
fractionation technology are a small
portion of the milk beverage market.
They were of the opinion that such
products are still too new to determine
their impact on Class I sales and
producer revenue. The brief also
asserted that adoption of a protein
standard as part of the fluid milk
product definition would discourage
new product development and would
increase costs that would result in
reduced sales of dairy-derived
ingredients. The brief urged that the
proceeding be terminated.
A Professor from Cornell University
testified regarding a research study,
conducted by the Cornell Program on
Dairy Markets and Policy, focusing on
the demand elasticity’s of various dairy
products. The witness did not appear in
support of or in opposition to any
proposal presented at the hearing. The
witness explained that the goal of the
study was to ascertain the extent to
which product innovation and
classification decisions influence
producer revenue. The study was
designed to evaluate four hypothetical
dairy products and test the effect that a
range of classification determinations
would have on producer revenue. The
witness explained the study concluded
that the impact on producer revenue of
a new product being reclassified from
Class II to Class I was likely to be small,
plus-or-minus $0.01 per hundredweight
(cwt.) However, the witness added, if
non-dairy ingredients were substituted
as a result of the reclassification, the
study predicted that the effect on
producer revenue would be lowered by
$0.22 per cwt. The witness concluded
that while the financial returns from
product reclassification could be
positive, the resulting ingredient
substitution which could take place
would result in a significant negative
impact on producer revenue.
The NMPF brief also addressed
concerns articulated at the hearing
regarding the need for a demand
elasticity study to address the issue of
product substitution before amending
the fluid milk product definition. The
brief asserted that a demand elasticity
study would not take into account
newly emerging products, changing
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
consumer preferences, and product
innovations that could change the
competitive relationships between
products and therefore would not
provide any relevant data. The brief also
argued that the economic model created
by Cornell University and discussed at
the hearing contained many incorrect
assumptions and thus concluded that
the study results were flawed.
The DFA/DLC brief also rebutted
opposition to Proposal 7 that called for
studies of product usage or demand
elasticity’s before considering
amendments to the fluid milk product
definition. The brief asserted the
previous amendments to the
classification system have been made
without such economic studies and that
this proceeding should be handled in
the same manner.
A witness appearing on behalf of
Dannon testified in support of Proposal
8—the proposal that seeks to exclude
yogurt containing beverages which
contain at least 20 percent yogurt by
weight from the fluid milk product
definition. The witness argued that
yogurt containing beverages are not
similar in form and use to fluid milk
products and should be excluded from
the fluid milk product definition. The
witness revealed that Dannon currently
manufactures yogurt containing
products which are classified as both
fluid milk products and Class II
products. Dannon maintained that
regardless of the classification, none of
their products compete with fluid milk.
According to the witness these products
should all be classified as Class II. The
witness emphasized that unlike fluid
milk, yogurt and yogurt-containing
products use unique cultures,
ingredients, and production technology
that differentiate them from fluid milk
products. Furthermore, the witness said,
the products’ packaging, taste, mouth
feel, shelf-life and how they are
marketed by their placement in the
grocery store differentiates them from
fluid milk.
The witness presented market
research conducted by Dannon which
concluded that yogurt-containing
beverages are consumed as a food
product and not as an alternative to
fluid milk. The witness claimed that
less than one percent of potential
consumers of a Dannon yogurtcontaining product consume the
product as a substitute for fluid milk.
Additionally, the witness noted that
Dannon advertises its yogurt-containing
products as a substitute for snacks, not
fluid milk. The witness concluded from
this that yogurt-containing products are
different than fluid milk, do not
compete with fluid milk in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 May 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
marketplace and therefore should not be
classified as a fluid milk product. The
Dannon witness urged the adoption of
Proposal 8 to exclude yogurt containing
beverages with at least 20 percent yogurt
by weight from the fluid milk product
definition.
The Dannon witness also testified in
opposition to Proposal 9 because it
proposes adoption of a protein standard
that Dannon does not consider justified.
The witness noted that Dannon does
support the proposed 20 percent
minimum yogurt content standard that
a product should contain as a condition
for being exempted from fluid milk
product classification.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of Dannon reiterated their
hearing testimony. The brief claimed
that fluid milk products should only be
those products that are closely related
to, or compete with, fluid milk for sales.
The brief stressed that yogurt-containing
beverages are dissimilar to fluid milk
beverages and are used as a food
replacement, not as a beverage
substitute. The brief noted that in 2004,
more than 37 percent of Dannon’s sales
were from products developed within
the last 5 years and stressed that
classifying all milk drinks with milkderived ingredients as fluid milk
products would result in decreased
innovation for developing additional
uses for milk.
A witness appearing on behalf of
General Mills testified in support of
Proposal 9. The witness argued that the
Department should classify products
primarily on the basis of form and use
and asserted that drinkable yogurt
products, while containing milk
ingredients, are food products and do
not compete with fluid milk. The
witness explained that drinkable yogurt
products were created to meet a change
in consumer preferences for
convenience and portability. The
witness presented market research
conducted by Yoplait demonstrating
that consumers view drinkable yogurt
products as alternatives to traditionally
packaged yogurt and other nutritional
snacks, not fluid milk. The witness
asserted that 80 percent of Yoplait
drinkable yogurt smoothie consumers
would substitute another yogurt product
for the smoothie.
The General Mills witness advocated
that the current classification system be
maintained. However, if the Department
determined that a change to the fluid
milk product definition is appropriate,
the witness urged adoption of Proposal
9 to exclude drinkable yogurt products
that contain at least 20 percent yogurt
by weight and 2.2 percent skim milk
protein from the fluid milk product
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28597
definition. According to the witness,
including drinkable yogurt products in
the fluid milk product definition would
increase costs to manufacturers
resulting in stifled innovation and a
shift towards using non-dairy
ingredients. The witness said this would
be financially detrimental to both dairy
farmers and dairy product
manufacturers.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of General Mills maintained that
ample evidence regarding the
fundamental differences of fluid milk
and yogurt containing beverages was
presented at the hearing to justify
exempting yogurt containing products
with more than 20 percent yogurt from
classification as a fluid milk product.
Two witnesses appearing on behalf of
the National Yogurt Association (NYA)
testified in support of proposals that
would exempt yogurt containing
products from the fluid milk product
definition. The witnesses testified that
previous regulatory decisions made by
the Department emphasized that
products classified as fluid milk
products should be intended to be
consumed as beverages and compete
with fluid milk. The witnesses
expressed disagreement with a
classification decision published in the
1990’s that classified drinkable yogurt
products as fluid milk products. The
witnesses were of the opinion that in
both form and use, yogurt and drinkable
yogurt products compete with other
food products, not fluid milk, and
should accordingly be classified as Class
II products. They explained that yogurt
products are produced and shipped
nationally by a few manufacturers, have
a shelf-life averaging 30–60 days, have
a texture and taste distinctly different
than fluid milk and are positioned in
retail stores separate from fluid milk.
The witnesses noted that yogurtcontaining beverages were developed as
a substitute for spoonable yogurt
products not fluid milk.
The NYA witnesses asserted that if a
protein standard was adopted that
resulted in yogurt containing products
being classified as fluid milk products,
manufacturers would look for less
expensive non-dairy proteins as
substitute ingredients. Furthermore, the
witnesses believed that the increase in
producer revenue resulting from
classifying drinkable yogurt products as
fluid milk products would not overcome
the decrease in revenue due to the loss
of sales from an increase in the price of
drinkable yogurt products.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of the NYA reiterated their
support for excluding all products
containing at least 20 percent yogurt
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
28598
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
provided that the yogurt meets the
standard of identity for yogurt.
According to the brief, the 20 percent
content requirement would ensure that
only products whose characterizing
ingredient is yogurt would be excluded
from the fluid milk product definition.
The brief also indicated that if the
Department determines not to exclude
yogurt containing products, then NYA
strongly opposes any change to the
current fluid milk product definition.
The NYA brief argued that consumer
surveys and marketplace data provided
by Dannon and General Mills,
explaining how yogurt-containing
products are fundamentally different
than fluid milk, was not contradicted at
the hearing. The brief also noted that
while DFA and NMPF testified that
consumers are buying low-carbohydrate
milk instead of fluid milk, they did not
offer similar evidence for yogurtcontaining products.
A witness appearing on behalf of
Bravo!, et al., testified in support of
amendments that would exempt yogurt
containing products and drinkable kefir
from the fluid milk product definition.
The witness argued that both products
are compositionally different than fluid
milk and do not compete for sales with
fluid milk. Furthermore, the witness
noted that yogurt and kefir products are
one of the fastest growing segments in
the dairy industry, providing a large
opportunity for the expanded use of
dairy-derived ingredients which should
not be hampered by the additional costs
of such ingredients being priced at the
Class I price.
The witness appearing on behalf of
Leprino testified that if the Department
recommended amending the fluid milk
product definition, then Leprino
supported the adoption of Proposal 9 to
exclude products containing at least 20
percent or more yogurt by weight from
the fluid milk product definition. The
witness also was of the opinion that
yogurt containing products do not
compete with fluid milk and should be
classified as Class II products. The
witness stressed that if these products
are not excluded from the fluid milk
product definition, then Leprino
strongly opposed the adoption of a
protein standard to be part of the fluid
milk product definition.
The witness appearing on behalf of
NMPF testified in opposition to
exempting yogurt-containing beverages
from the fluid milk product definition.
The witness believed that these
products are similar in form and use to
other flavored fluid milk products and
should be considered a substitute for
fluid milk. In its post-hearing brief,
NMPF maintained its opposition to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 May 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
proposals that would exclude drinkable
yogurt products from the fluid milk
product definition.
The witness appearing on behalf of
DFA/DLC also testified in opposition to
the adoption of Proposals 8 and 9. The
witness claimed that adoption of these
proposals would allow more products to
be classified as Class II products, even
though they compete with fluid milk for
sales.
The DFA/DLC brief further claimed
that the growth of drinkable yogurt
products in the market place has not
been impeded by previous classification
decisions and that such products should
not be excluded from the fluid milk
product definition because some
hearing participants claimed it would
harm the innovation of new dairy
products.
The witness appearing on behalf of
Leprino testified in support of Proposal
10. The witness testified that only
products that compete with fluid milk
should be classified as fluid milk
products; therefore meal replacements
and nutritional drinks should remain
exempted from the fluid milk product
definition.
A post-hearing brief submitted on
behalf of Novartis stated that the
Department should exempt special
dietary need and nutritional beverages
from the fluid milk product definition.
The brief explained that Novartis’
products are not currently classified as
fluid milk products due to their
nutritional nature, the level of nonfat
milk solids contained in their product,
and because their products are only
available through foodservice and
healthcare channels. The brief stressed
that Novartis’ health care products were
never intended to compete with
traditional fluid milk.
The brief predicted that Novartis’
products could possibly become
reclassified as fluid milk products if a
2.25 percent protein standard were
adopted as a part of the definition. The
brief insisted that if these products are
reclassified, it would result in higher
costs for patients with special dietary
and nutrition needs. If a protein
standard was adopted as part of the
fluid milk product definition, Novartis
urged the Department to exempt
nutritional products consumed for
special dietary use from the fluid milk
product definition.
A witness appearing on behalf of
Hormel testified in support of Proposal
11 seeking to exclude healthcare
beverages from the fluid milk product
definition. The witness testified that
fluid milk products designed for the
health care industry should be
exempted because they do not compete
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
with fluid milk for sales, their
distribution is primarily to health care
facilities, and they are targeted to a
small segment of the population. The
witness argued if products designed for
the health care industry were classified
as fluid milk products, it would have no
effect on producer revenue because
these products have extremely limited
distribution. The witness explained that
many products they manufacture are
designed to help counter the effects of
malnutrition in adults with a variety of
medical conditions. These specially
designed products are not marketed nor
labeled as fluid milk, instead they are
considered to be foods for special
dietary use, the witness noted, and
should be exempt from the fluid milk
product definition.
The Bravo!, et al., witness also
testified in support of the continued
exemption from the fluid milk product
definition for products such as infant
formula, meal replacements, products
packaged in hermetically sealed
containers, snack replacements, high
protein drinks, and products that
contain alcohol or are formulated for
animal use. The witness explained that
meal replacements and similar products
have historically been exempted from
the fluid milk product definition and
that their regulatory status should not be
changed.
The NMPF witness testified in
opposition to Proposal 10 arguing that
its adoption would eliminate important
factors in determining if a product was
specially formulated for a specific
dietary purpose that would warrant
exemption from the fluid milk product
definition. The witness was also
opposed to Proposal 11 because the
proposed language—‘‘nutrient enhanced
fortified formulas’’—was too broad and
would not clearly distinguish such
products from traditional fluid milk
products.
The DFA/DLA witness testified in
opposition to Proposals 10 and 11. The
witness was of the opinion that
amending the fluid milk product
definition to broaden the exemption of
products such as infant formulas and
meal replacements was not justified
because doing so would significantly
lower Class I use. This position was
reiterated in their brief.
The witness appearing on behalf of OAT-KA testified that products packaged
in hermetically-sealed containers or that
are specialized for longer shelf life
should remain exempt from fluid milk
product classification because those
products are used as meal replacements
and meal supplements, not as
alternatives to milk. The witness said
that since the term ‘‘meal replacement’’
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
is not defined in the current definition,
no change in the exemption of
hermetically sealed containers should
be made. The position was reiterated in
their brief.
The Dannon witness testified in
opposition to the adoption of Proposal
10 because it would remove the 6.5
percent nonfat milk solids standard of
the fluid milk product definition.
Findings: This decision recommends
that the fluid milk product definition for
all Federal orders maintain the current
6.5 percent nonfat milk solids product
content criteria and incorporate an
equivalent true protein standard of 2.25
percent product content criteria for
determining whether a product meets
the fluid milk product definition. The
6.5 percent nonfat milk solids and the
2.25 percent true protein criteria are not
intended to be absolute determinates of
whether a product meets the fluid milk
product definition. In determining if a
product meets the fluid milk product
definition, the Department’s primary
criteria will be the form and intended
use of the product as required by the
Agriculture Marketing Agreement Act.
The calculation of the percent true
protein and the percent nonfat milk
solids contained in a product will be
performed by measuring the true protein
and nonfat milk solids of all milkderived ingredients contained in the
finished product.
The primary goal of Federal milk
marketing orders is to establish and
maintain orderly marketing conditions.
This is achieved primarily though the
use of classified pricing (pricing milk
based on its use) and the marketwide
pooling of the proceeds of milk used in
a marketing area among all classes of
use. These two tools enable Federal
orders to establish minimum prices that
handlers must pay for milk based on use
and return a weighted average or
uniform price that dairy farmers receive
for their milk. The AMAA specifies that
Federal orders classify milk ‘‘* * * in
accordance with the form in which or
the purpose for which it is used.’’ With
respect to milk products, there can be
many forms. In most cases, the form of
the milk product provides a reasonable
basis upon which to differentiate the
milk into different classes of use.
Through classified pricing and
marketwide pooling, Federal orders
promote and maintain orderly
marketing by equitably pricing milk
used in the same class among competing
handlers within a marketing area. This
does not mean that handlers will
necessarily have equal costs since
differences in milk tests, procurement
costs, and transportation will impact the
final raw milk costs. However, it does
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 May 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
allow handlers to have the same
minimum regulated price for milk used
in a particular category of products or
class of products for which they
compete for sales. The regulated
minimum price is the class price for the
respective class of use. Thus, it is
reasonable and appropriate that milk
used in identical or nearly identical
products should therefore be placed in
the same class of use. This tends to
reduce the incidence of disorderly
marketing that may arise because of
price differences between competing
handlers.
Federal milk orders classify producer
milk (skim milk and butterfat) disposed
of or used to produce a product.
Producer milk classified as Class I
consists of those products that are
intended to be used as beverages
including, but not limited to, whole
milk, skim milk, low fat milk, and
flavored milk products like chocolate
milk. Producer milk classified as Class
II includes milk used in the production
of soft or spoonable manufactured
products such as sour cream, ice cream,
cottage cheese, yogurt, and milk that is
used to manufacture other food
products. Producer milk classified as
Class III includes, among other things,
skim milk and butterfat used in the
production of hard cheese products. The
Class IV use of producer milk generally
consists of milk used in the production
of any dried milk product such as
nonfat dry milk and butter.
Federal orders provide a definition of
a ‘‘fluid milk product’’ to identify the
types of products that are intended to be
consumed as beverages and to specify
that the skim milk and butterfat in these
types of milk products should be
classified as Class I and priced
accordingly. The current fluid milk
product definition contained in all
Federal milk orders provides a nonexhaustive list of products that are
specifically identified as fluid milk
products. The definition also specifies
certain compositional criteria for fluid
milk products—any product containing
less than 9 percent butterfat and 6.5
percent or more milk solids nonfat. The
definition also specifically exempts
from the fluid milk product definition
formulas especially prepared for infant
feeding or dietary use (meal
replacement) packaged in a
hermetically-sealed container, any
product that contains by weight less
than 6.5 percent milk solids nonfat, and
whey.
Numerous witnesses urged that the
definition of milk (standard of identity)
not be changed. This decision does not
change the definition of milk as defined
by the Food and Drug Administration
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28599
(FDA) in 21 CFR 131.110. Some
witnesses were of the opinion that the
addition of various ingredients to milk
would cause the resulting product to not
meet the Grade A standard. Federal
orders do not determine if milk is Grade
A or what ingredients are allowed in
milk. Federal orders do not establish
standards of identity for milk. Such
standards are established by other
agencies such as a state board of health
or the FDA. This decision does amend
the definition of a fluid milk product in
all marketing orders on the basis of form
and intended use.
Testimony given at the hearing and
positions taken in post-hearing briefs
discussed extensively the importance of
form and intended use in determining
whether a product should be defined as
a fluid milk product. In this regard, the
legislation providing for milk marketing
orders, as already discussed, provides
for milk to be classified in accordance
with the form in which or purpose for
which it is used. This requirement
should be the primary basis for
classifying milk. In identifying the form
and intended use of milk, all Federal
orders currently define a fluid milk
product as a product intended to be
used as a beverage.
As in the 1974 uniform classification
decision and subsequent classification
decisions, this decision recommends
that the primary criteria to be relied
upon for determining whether or not a
product should be considered a fluid
milk product be its form and intended
use. Fluid milk products are drinkable
and are intended to be used as
beverages. The fluid milk product
definition also should continue to list
the various products that are identified
as fluid milk products and provide
criteria to exclude those that are not.
The identification of these various fluid
milk products in the fluid milk product
definition has not been, and is not now,
intended to be an all inclusive list of
products that are defined to be fluid
milk products.
Comparability to the products listed
in the fluid milk product definition
should also assist in determining if
other products should be defined as a
fluid milk product. If a product is not
one of the listed products but is similar
to a listed product, this decision
recommends that the form in which and
the intended purpose for which the
product is used be considered together
with the product’s composition.
Composition criteria, as currently
provided, provides criteria to exclude
products from the fluid milk product
definition. The criteria that a fluid milk
product must contain by weight more
than 6.5 percent nonfat milk solids has
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
28600
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
been a long-held criteria in defining and
excluding products from the definition.
However, Federal orders do not define
nonfat milk solids. The record reveals
that this has been administratively
addressed in directives specifying
which milk solids should be considered
in determining the nonfat milk solids
content of a product. Currently, not all
nonfat milk solids are considered in this
determination even though all of such
solids are derived from milk.
This decision recommends continuing
to rely, in part, on compositional criteria
in determining if a product meets the
fluid milk product definition. The fluid
milk product definition would continue
to state that a product should contain
less than 9 percent butterfat and contain
more than 2.25 percent true protein or
6.5 percent nonfat solids, by weight.
The 9 percent butterfat criteria is
currently used as the maximum
butterfat content to differentiate
between fluid milk products and
products that are fluid cream products
(a Class II use of milk) and should
remain unchanged.
The 2.25 percent true protein criteria
should, in most cases, be sufficient to
distinguish if a product is a Class I or
Class II use of milk. Nevertheless,
products that may more closely
resemble the listed fluid milk products
in form and intended use but contain
less than 2.25 percent true protein, may
be determined by the Department to
meet the fluid milk product definition
because the products are competing
with fluid milk.
The proposed composition criteria of
the fluid milk product definition are not
intended to be definitive in determining
if a product meets the fluid milk
product definition any more than the
list of defined fluid milk products is
definitive. Rather, the criteria are
intended to assist in determining
whether or not the product in question
has the form and intended use as the
listed fluid milk products. This gives
first-priority consideration that the
primary classification criteria be a
product’s form and intended use.
Record evidence reveals criticism that
the current fluid milk product definition
has not changed to reflect the
technological advances including the
fractionation of milk. While the dairy
industry has changed significantly, the
principles of product classification on
the form and intended use have
remained relatively unchanged since
1974. Technological advances that
provide the ability to fractionate milk
into its more basic components has
given rise to the inadequacy of the
current fluid milk product definition
and the need for its revision. For
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 May 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
example, the ability to separate proteins
from the lactose and ash and to separate
proteins between casein and ‘‘whey
proteins’’ creates the opportunity to
make new dairy-based beverages that
may be similar to milk but are different
in composition. A dairy-based beverage
could be made from microfiltered
‘‘whey proteins’’, butteroil, lactose and
water that would have equivalent
butterfat, true protein, and nonfat solids
as milk. Fractionation technology
creates the ability to produce dairybased beverages of almost any
composition.
Several witnesses at the hearing
addressed specific composition criteria
that should be used for determining if
a product meets the fluid milk product
definition. Proponents of the 2.25
percent true protein criteria explained
that with the technology to separate the
lactose from the protein in milk, protein
also should be used in determining if a
product should be a fluid milk product
because protein is the highest valued
nonfat milk solid and because lactose is
the component most often not used in
the formulation of many manufactured
dairy-based beverages. Under the
current 6.5 percent nonfat milk solids
criteria, a dairy-based beverage with
lactose removed is generally determined
to not be a fluid milk product. Milk, in
either wet or dry form, that has lactose
removed is generalized as ‘‘milk protein
concentrate (MPC.)’’ MPC has
administratively been excluded from
being considered a nonfat milk solid
even though it is derived from milk.
Thus with lactose removed, a product
closely resembling milk in form and
intended use may contain less than the
current 6.5 percent nonfat milk solids
even though the protein content could
exceed the protein content of milk.
Other testimony contended that
protein is not a significant component
in fluid milk products and incorporating
a protein criteria is therefore not
appropriate. Contrary to the view that
protein is not a significant component
in fluid milk products, in whole milk
protein is the third most abundant
component following lactose and
butterfat. In lowfat milk, protein is the
second most abundant component.
Even though the record and post
hearing briefs contain considerable
discussion concerning the possible
substitution of nondairy ingredients in
fluid milk products, no data was
presented at the hearing to indicate at
what price level or degree such
substitution would take place.
Testimony at the hearing speculated
that handlers may use nondairy
ingredients in the event that the fluid
milk product definition were
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
broadened, for example, by adoption of
the 2.25 percent true protein criteria as
an option to the current 6.5 percent
nonfat milk solids criteria. Additionally,
most handlers who are making new
dairy-based beverages were of the
opinion that broadening the fluid milk
product definition would hinder
innovation and new product
development.
The addition of a true protein criteria
should assist in determining those
products that should be considered
fluid milk products. The inclusion of a
true protein minimum criteria also
would assure that products which are
comparable to the products listed in the
fluid milk product definition will be
properly classified as Class I. The 2.25
percent true protein criteria is
comparable to 6.5 percent nonfat milk
solids.
Proponent witnesses speculated that
adoption of a 2.25 percent true protein
criteria would not change the
classification of products currently not
determined to meet the fluid milk
product definition. Classification
determinations made by the Department
are not available to the public because
of the proprietary nature of the
information; therefore the proponents
have no basis to accurately conclude
that adoption of a true protein standard
would not alter any current products
classification. To the extent that existing
products meet the proposed fluid milk
product definition, such products will
be reclassified as fluid milk products.
The Class I use of milk will continue
to be priced on skim milk and butterfat.
Skim milk and butterfat pricing does not
distinguish what components or the
level of components that are in the skim
fraction. Therefore, even if there is a
greater level of protein in the skim
fraction, there is no greater value that
will be assigned to the skim fraction.
Producers may benefit from products
being determined as meeting the fluid
milk product definition if the dairy
ingredients in these products are priced
as Class I and not because of the
adoption of a 2.25 percent true protein
criteria.
The true protein or nonfat milk solids
contained in the finished product
should be used to determine if the 2.25
percent true protein or the 6.5 percent
nonfat solids criteria has been met. The
composition of the finished product,
including all milk-derived ingredients,
will provide a clear comparison of the
product in question to the products
listed and defined in the fluid milk
product definition. These ingredients
include, but are not limited to, the
specific products listed in the fluid milk
definition, nonfat dry milk, milk protein
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
concentrate, casein, calcium and
sodium caseinate, and whey. The
compositional content will be computed
by using the pounds of true protein or
nonfat milk solids in the finished
products. For all other purposes, such as
pricing and pooling, the fluid equivalent
of all dairy ingredients will be used
except casein, sodium and calcium
casienate and whey. These dairy
ingredients may be used in some form
to produce products that are substitutes
for other fluid milk products.
Nonfat dry milk is a storable product
that is subsequently used in many other
products. Nonfat dry milk can be mixed
with water and the resulting product
can be marketed as skim milk in
competition with fresh skim milk or,
with the addition of cream or butter,
and water, a product could compete
with fresh whole milk. Federal milk
orders have long held, and this decision
reaffirms, that nonfat dry milk
reconstituted to make a fluid milk
product or to fortify a fluid milk product
should be assessed the Class I value
because the reconstituted or fortified
product competes against Class I fluid
milk products. The Class I charge,
commonly referred to as an ‘‘up-charge’’
or compensatory payment, is based on
the difference between the current
months Class I price and Class IV price.
The compensatory payment is assessed
on the volume of reconstituted milk in
the modified product, up to the level of
an unmodified product. The
compensatory payment accounts for the
difference from how the dry product
was first priced (Class IV) and how the
dry product was actually used (Class I.)’’
The ‘‘up-charge’’ assures equity between
competing handlers on raw product
cost. The ‘‘up-charge’’ also assures
producers that they will receive the
Class I value’s contribution to a
marketing order’s blend price for milk
marketed as a fluid milk product. Most
importantly, it maintains the integrity of
classified pricing.
Milk protein concentrate (MPC) in
both wet and dry (powdered) forms
have similarities to nonfat dry milk even
though MPC does not have the same
component composition as skim milk or
nonfat dry milk. Dry MPC, like nonfat
dry milk, is the end result of a
manufacturing process (the removal of
water and lactose) to convert milk solids
into a storable, easily transportable, and
versatile product for use in the dairy
and food industry. MPCs can be used as
a substitute in drinkable/beverage
products for the protein and some of the
butterfat traditionally supplied by fresh
milk, ultra-filtered skim milk, nonfat
dry milk, or whole milk powder. These
similarities in uses to nonfat dry milk
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 May 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
support concluding that MPCs should
be included in determining the nonfat
milk solids or true protein content of a
drinkable product and, on a fluid
equivalent basis, be included in the
allocation and pricing of producer milk
contained in the fluid milk product.
Because casein, calcium and sodium
caseinates and whey are milk-derived,
they are recommended to be included in
determining if a product is a fluid milk
product. However, their use in fluid
milk products will not be priced at the
Class I price or be subject to an ‘‘upcharge’’ as will nonfat dry milk and
MPC. These products can not readily be
substituted for a listed fluid milk
product as can nonfat dry milk and
MPC. For example, whey contains little
or no casein and only some of the
lactose and ash of milk. Similarly,
calcium and sodium caseinates do not
contain the whey proteins (whether
derived from cheese making or some
other process) as well as the lactose and
ash found in milk. Therefore, these and
similar milk-derived ingredients will
not be priced in products that are
determined to be fluid milk products.
Milk-derived ingredients, except
ingredients such as casein, calcium and
sodium caseinate and whey, contained
in a fluid milk product will be included
in the allocation process of producer
milk and the resulting classification and
pricing on a fluid milk equivalent basis.
Whey is intended to include whey, dry
whey and whey protein concentrates.
The fluid equivalent for those products
in which the relationship between the
protein and nonfat milk solids has not
been altered will be computed using
nonfat solids while the fluid equivalent
for those products in which the
relationship between the protein and
nonfat milk solids has been altered will
be determined on a true protein basis.
The computation of a handler’s cost
under Federal milk orders is unchanged
as a result of this decision. These
included products, such as nonfat dry
milk and MPC will be used to determine
the quantity of the fluid milk equivalent
in the modified fluid milk product that
is greater than the volume of an
unmodified fluid milk product of the
same type and butterfat content. The
equivalent volume will be Class I and
charged the Class I price while the
greater volume will be an ‘‘other source
receipt’’ and be included in Class IV.
Any of the excess that may be allocated
to Class I will be subject to an
upcharge—at the difference between the
Class I and Class IV prices.
Although the record lacks specific
data concerning the possible changes in
classification of current products as a
result of adoption of this decision, the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28601
need for the continued use of the form
and intended use criteria specified in
the AMAA is clear. The record of this
proceeding contains sufficient evidence
to determine the criteria that can be
relied upon for determining if a new
product meets or does not meet the
proposed fluid milk product definition.
This is particularly evident since this
decision does not recommend changing
the primary criteria of classifying milk
on the basis of its form and intended
use.
Even though whey should be
included in determining if a product
meets the fluid milk product definition,
whey should not be included in the
pricing and pooling of fluid milk
product that contains whey. In this
regard, opposition to the inclusion of
whey as a determinate of whether or not
a product meets the fluid milk product
definition because it may cause
processors to use alternative protein
sources in manufactured beverages and
reduce producer revenue is rendered
moot.
Since casein, sodium and calcium
casinates and whey used in making a
fluid milk product could have been
previously priced under a Federal milk
order, previous pricing should not be a
criterion for determining if a dairy
ingredient should continue to be
included in pricing of the fluid milk
product in which casein, sodium and
calcium casinates and whey are
contained. Other criteria, such as
substitutability for fluid milk products,
are better determinates for including a
dairy ingredient in the computation of
the criteria and the pricing of such
products.
Some witnesses testified that even
though a product met the fluid milk
product definition, the intended use of
that product should be considered for
assigning the milk in that product to the
most appropriate class use. In this
regard, if the intended use of the
product is a food item that does not
compete with traditional fluid milk in
the market place, the product should be
exempted from the fluid milk product
definition. The most notable products of
this characteristic are drinkable yogurts
which contain yogurt and other dairy
products that are drinkable but are not
intended to be used as a beverage. The
record reveals that drinkable yogurts are
marketed as a food item to supplement
or even replace a meal such as breakfast
or lunch, and are a quick and easy to
carry snack. This differentiates their
intended use from fluid milk products
consumed as beverages or as
accompaniments to other mealtime
foods.
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
28602
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
The record supports concluding that
the intended use of drinkable yogurts
are not for use as a beverage because
they are marketed and positioned in the
marketplace differently than fluid milk
products. These products are not
marketed along side milk in retail
outlets. Instead, they are positioned
alongside spoonable yogurts in cups. It
is reasonable to conclude that drinkable
yogurts do not compete with fluid milk
products.
Nevertheless, it is also reasonable to
establish a minimum level of yogurt that
needs to be contained in the finished
product to separate them from other
drinkable yogurt-containing beverages.
The proposed minimum content of
yogurt of 20 percent offered by
proponents is reasonable and is
recommended for adoption for
excluding drinkable yogurt products
from the fluid milk product definition.
The yogurt contained in exempted
drinkable yogurt products must meet
the yogurt standard of identity as
defined by the FDA.
Opponents of excluding drinkable
yogurts from the fluid milk products
definition stress that these should not be
excluded because they are beverages
and are packaged similarly to other fluid
milk products. Opponents are of the
opinion that drinkable yogurts are fluid
milk products because they are
comparable to flavored or cultured fluid
milk products. Drinkable yogurts do
have several characteristics similar to
listed fluid milk products—they can be
used as a beverage and are similarly
packaged. There are, however, other
characteristics which differentiate
drinkable yogurts from fluid milk
products. These characteristics include,
in most cases, a different consistency
than the fluid milk products, a
significant volume of added yogurt, the
addition of fruit and not just flavorings,
and live and active cultures supplied by
the yogurt. These differences between
listed fluid milk products and drinkable
yogurts warrant the exclusion of
drinkable yogurts containing at least 20
percent yogurt from being a fluid milk
product. Drinkable products with less
than 20 percent yogurt will be
considered fluid milk products. The
yogurt contained in those products with
less than 20 percent yogurt will be
priced at the Class II price and not be
subject to an ‘‘up charge’’ as a result of
their use in a fluid milk product.
One proponent for excluding
drinkable yogurts from the fluid milk
product definition sought to also
include kefir. The only evidence
provided to support excluding kefir
from the fluid milk product definition
was identifying kefir as a cultured
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 May 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
product similar to drinkable yogurt.
Kefir is a cultured product that, like
drinkable yogurts, contains active
cultures. While cultured beverages are
one of the listed products in the fluid
milk product definition, kefir’s
similarities to drinkable yogurts provide
a reasonable basis to conclude that the
milk used in kefir products should be
classified in the same way as milk used
in drinkable yogurt products. As with
drinkable yogurts containing at least 20
percent yogurt, kefir should be exempt
from the fluid milk product definition.
The exclusion of drinkable yogurts
from the fluid milk product definition
will have a minimal impact on the
resulting uniform prices to producers.
Less than one-half of one percent of the
packaged fluid milk products
distributed in 2004 were drinkable
yogurt or kefir type beverages that are
currently classified as fluid milk
products. For 2004, it is estimated that
if all of the current yogurt and kefir
beverages had been Class II, the impact
on producers, either through the
uniform price or producer price
differential, would have been a $0.0026
per hundredweight reduction on the
more than 103 billion pounds of
producer milk pooled on Federal orders.
Manufacturers of milk-based products
that are intended to be used for dietary
uses (meal replacements) testified that
products sold for such dietary use in
hermetically-sealed containers and the
same product sold in other types of
containers receive different regulatory
classifications. Some products, such as
those intended to be used for infant
feeding and dietary needs (meal
replacements), are currently considered
Class II products if they are
hermetically-sealed. However, the same
product in a brick-pack or other types of
packaging are considered fluid milk
products. These products have a limited
distribution and in the case of many of
the dietary products, sales are only to
health care facilities (such as hospitals
and nursing homes) and they have a
very long shelf life. The limited
distribution and packaging these
products indicates that they do not
directly compete with Class I products.
Most importantly, their intended use
can be generalized as substitutes for
meals by infants, the infirm and the
elderly and not for use as a beverage.
This decision, in the narrow context
of a highly specialized and marketed
drinkable product sold to the healthcare
industry, finds that packaging is not a
legitimate criterion for considering some
meal replacement products as Class II
products and others in Class I. Whether
the dietary products (meal
replacements) are in hermetically-sealed
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
containers or not, the dietary products
(meal replacements) are intended to be
used to replace the nutrition of normal
meals in the health care industry and
not intended to be used in the same
manner as fluid milk. The dietary
products packaged in other than
hermetically-sealed containers still have
the same basic form and intended use as
those in hermetically-sealed containers
and it is therefore reasonable that they
should be similarly classified. Dietary
products (meal replacements) should be
excluded from the fluid milk product
definition and should be considered
Class II products.
To further clarify which products
should be excluded from the fluid milk
product definition, the term ‘‘meal
replacement’’ is incorporated into the
description detailing the intended
meaning of dietary use. The term ‘‘meal
replacement’’ will not include a fortified
fluid milk product or fortified dairy
beverage. The term ‘‘meal replacement’’
encompasses those dairy products that
are truly intended to be a replacement
for a meal. Meal replacements are
categorized as those products sold to the
health care industry and may include
other products that are similar in form
and intended use. This decision
recommends adding the qualifier ‘‘sold
to the health care industry’’ to the
description of ‘‘dietary use (meal
replacement)’’ and eliminating the need
for dietary (meal replacement) products
to be packaged in hermitically-sealed
containers. By replacing ‘‘hermiticallysealed’’ with ‘‘sold to the health care
industry,’’ competing products will
receive equitable regulatory treatment.
This change should have a deminimus
impact on producer milk revenue
because most products considered to be
meal replacements are currently Class II
products and because the quantity of
milk in these products relative to all
milk pooled under Federal orders is
very small.
In response to concerns that
expanding exemptions of products from
the fluid milk product definition would
result in lower producer revenue, the
record of this proceeding lacks the data
to conclude that exempting certain
milk-based products, or reclassifying
current products from one class to
another, will harm producer revenue.
Any negative impact may be offset by
other products that may be determined
to meet the fluid milk product
definition as a result of adoption of its
recommended changes.
Proposal 5 calls for, in part, retaining
the 6.5 percent nonfat solids criteria and
giving the Department the flexibility to
include as fluid milk products other
products that fell below 6.5 percent
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
nonfat solids. At the hearing, the
proposal was modified to require the
Department to make other
determinations and to conduct studies
before a product is determined to meet
the fluid milk product definition. The
modified proposals would require the
Department to determine if a product
competes directly and substantially
with FDA defined milk products. The
modified proposal included five criteria
for making the required determination
and would require the Department to
provide written determination of
classification prior to the product being
included as a fluid milk product. The
modified proposal would also require
that the handler market more than three
million pounds in a Federal order per
month before the product could be
considered a fluid milk product even if
the product met the proposed five
criteria.
The criteria of Proposal 5, as
modified, for determining if a product
should be a fluid milk product are not
reasonable and do not make the
classification of milk on the basis of
form and intended use. The additional
criteria, including a comparison of retail
prices, advertising, and substitutability
between the new product and fluid milk
products do not conform to the
requirement of classification on the
basis of form and intended use.
In addition, the data collection and
analysis called for in Proposal 5’s
modification would be unduly
burdensome to both the dairy industry
and to the Department. The burden is
also without significant improvement to
product classification determinations
and the potential loss of revenue to
producers who would never recover lost
revenue in the event a new product is
determined to meet the fluid milk
product definition.
A modification to Proposal 7 made at
the hearing should not be adopted. This
modification to require the Department
to hold a hearing do determine the
classification of a new product made by
new technology is not necessary for the
same reasons as in recommending that
Proposal 5 not be adopted. Furthermore,
there is no need to incorporate a specific
requirement in to the order to hold a
hearing when such an option is already
available.
A number of opponents of proposals
seeking to change the fluid milk product
definition argued that there must
necessarily exist a current problem in
order to make amendments to the
provisions of Federal milk marketing
orders. This decision disagrees with
such arguments. Anticipating problems
and amending regulations to address
anticipated changes in marketing
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 May 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
conditions may be a valid action on the
part of the Department to assure
continued orderly marketing conditions
and equity among producers and
handlers. In this proceeding it is
especially appropriate to have
provisions that can address the future
needs of a rapidly changing industry
brought about by new technology.
Rulings on Proposed Findings and
Conclusions
Briefs and proposed findings and
conclusions were filed on behalf of
certain interested parties. These briefs,
proposed findings and conclusions, and
the evidence in the record were
considered in making the findings and
conclusions set forth above. To the
extent that the suggested findings and
conclusions filed by interested parties
are inconsistent with the findings and
conclusions set forth herein, the
requests to make such findings or reach
such conclusions are denied for the
reasons previously stated in this
decision.
General Findings
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Recommended Marketing Agreements
and Order Amending the Orders
The recommended marketing
agreements are not included in this
decision because the regulatory
provisions thereof would be the same as
those contained in the orders, as hereby
proposed to be amended. The following
order amending the orders, as amended,
regulating the handling of milk in the
Northeast and other marketing areas is
recommended as the detailed and
appropriate means by which the
foregoing conclusions may be carried
out.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1000
Milk marketing orders.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble 7 CFR Part 1000 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 1000—GENERAL PROVISIONS
OF FEDERAL MILK MARKETING
ORDERS
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
Part 1000 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
The findings and determinations
hereinafter set forth supplement those
that were made when the Northeast and
other marketing orders were first issued
and when they were amended. The
previous findings and determinations
are hereby ratified and confirmed,
except where they may conflict with
those set forth herein.
(a) The tentative marketing
agreements and the orders, as hereby
proposed to be amended, and all of the
terms and conditions thereof, will tend
to effectuate the declared policy of the
Act;
(b) The parity prices of milk as
determined pursuant to section 2 of the
Act are not reasonable in view of the
price of feeds, available supplies of
feeds, and other economic conditions
which affect market supply and demand
for milk in the marketing areas, and the
minimum prices specified in the
tentative marketing agreements and the
orders, as hereby proposed to be
amended, are such prices as will reflect
the aforesaid factors, ensure a sufficient
quantity of pure and wholesome milk,
and be in the public interest; and
(c) The tentative marketing
agreements and the orders, as hereby
proposed to be amended, will regulate
the handling of milk in the same
manner as, and will be applicable only
to persons in the respective classes of
industrial and commercial activity
specified in, marketing agreements upon
which a hearing has been held.
PO 00000
28603
Sfmt 4702
2. Amend § 1000.15 by revising
paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, and
(b)(1), redesignating paragraph (b)(2) as
(b)(4) and adding new paragraphs (b)(2)
and (b)(3), to read as follows:
§ 1000.15
Fluid milk product.
(a) Fluid milk products shall include
any milk products in fluid or frozen
form intended to be used as beverages.
Such products include, but are not
limited to: Milk, fat-free milk, lowfat
milk, light milk, reduced fat milk, milk
drinks, eggnog and cultured buttermilk,
including any such beverage products
that are flavored; cultured; modified
with added or reduced nonfat solids,
milk proteins, or lactose; sterilized;
concentrated; or, reconstituted. As used
in this part, the term concentrated milk
means milk that contains not less than
25.5 percent, and not more than 50
percent, total milk solids:
(b) Fluid milk products shall not
include:
(1) Plain or sweetened evaporated
milk/skim milk, sweetened condensed
milk/skim milk, yogurt containing
beverages containing 20 percent or more
yogurt by weight, Kefir, formulas
especially prepared for infant feeding or
dietary use (meal replacement) sold to
the health care industry, and whey;
(2) Milk products containing more
than 9 percent butterfat;
(3) Milk products containing less than
2.25 percent true milk protein and less
than 6.5 percent nonfat milk solids, by
weight, unless their form and intended
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
28604
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
use is comparable to the products
contained in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section; and
*
*
*
*
*
§ 1000.40
[Amended]
3. Section 1000.40 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and
(b)(2)(vi) to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Aerated cream, frozen cream, sour
cream, sour half-and-half, sour cream
mixtures containing nonmilk items,
yogurt, including yogurt containing
beverages with more than 20 percent
yogurt by weight, Kefir, and any other
semi-solid product resembling a Class II
product;
*
*
*
*
*
(vi) Formulas especially prepared for
infant feeding or dietary use (meal
replacement) that are sold to the health
care industry;
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: May 12, 2006.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 06–4591 Filed 5–16–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
13 CFR Part 121
RIN 3245–AF29
Small Business Size Standards; Air
Traffic Control, Other Airport
Operations, and Other Support
Activities for Air Transportation
U.S. Small Business
Administration.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) proposes to
increase the size standard for the Air
Traffic Control (North American
Classification Systems (NAICS) 488111),
Other Airport Operations (NAICS
488119), and Other Support Activities
for Air Transportation (NAICS 488190)
industries from $6.5 million in average
annual receipts to $21 million. The
proposed revisions are being made to
better define the size of a small business
in these industries based on a review of
industry characteristics.
DATES: Comments must be received by
SBA on or before June 16, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN 3245–AF29, by one of
the following methods: (1) Federal
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:07 May 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments;
(2) Fax: (202) 205–6390; or (3) Mail/
Hand Delivery/Courier: Gary M.
Jackson, Assistant Administrator for
Size Standards, 409 Third Street, SW.,
Mail Code 6530, Washington, DC 20416.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Diane Heal, Office of Size Standards,
(202) 205–6618 or
sizestandards@sba.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SBA has
received a request from a Federal agency
that contracts for services in the Other
Airport Operations Industry to review
this industry’s existing $6.5 million size
standard. This size standard was last
revised in 2005 to incorporate an
inflation adjustment to receipt-based
size standards (70 FR 72577, December
19, 2005). SBA has not conducted a
review of this industry’s characteristics
since the early 1980’s. This agency
believes that SBA should create a
special size standard under NAICS
488119 for Federal contracts consisting
of processing passengers and servicing
aircraft for long range or international
flights. Many of these contracts involve
coordinating all aspects of passenger
service (including customs clearances,
security requirements) as well as
aviation services (such as food service,
janitorial services, and aircraft fueling
services). The agency also pointed some
of these activities individually have
higher size standards (i.e., the Food
Service Contractors Industry and the
Janitorial Services Industry have size
standards of $19 million and $15
million, respectively, while the Aircraft
Fueling Industry carries a 500-employee
size standard). Although the Federal
agency requested a review of the Air
Airport Operations Industry, SBA
decided to review also the Air Traffic
Control Industry and Other Support
Activities for Air Transportation
Industries because many firms that
perform Other Airport Operation
Services also are active in these two
industries.
Below is a discussion of the
methodology used by SBA to review its
size standards, and the analysis leading
to the proposal to increase the size
standard for the three industries
comprising air transportation support
activities from $6.5 million to $21
million in average annual receipts.
Size Standards Methodology:
Congress granted SBA discretion to
establish detailed size standards (15
U.S.C. 632(a)(2)). SBA’s Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) 90 01 3,
‘‘Size Determination Program’’
(available on SBA’s Web site at https://
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
www.sba.gov/library/soproom.html)
describes four factors SBA considers for
establishing and evaluating size
standards: (1) The structure of the
industry and its various economic
characteristics; (2) SBA program
objectives and the impact of different
size standards on these programs; (3)
whether a size standard successfully
excludes those businesses which are
dominant in the industry; and (4) other
factors if applicable. Other factors,
including the impact on other Federal
agencies’ programs, may come to the
attention of SBA during the public
comment period or from SBA’s own
research on the industry. No formula or
weighting has been adopted so that the
factors may be evaluated in the context
of a specific industry. Below is a
discussion of SBA’s analysis of the
economic characteristics of an industry,
the impact of a proposed size standard
on SBA programs, and the evaluation of
whether a firm at or below a size
standard could be considered dominant
in the industry.
Industry Analysis: Section 3(a)(3) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632
(a)(3)) requires that size standards vary
by industry to the extent necessary to
reflect differing industry characteristics.
SBA has two ‘‘base’’ or ‘‘anchor’’ size
standards that apply to most
industries—500 employees for
manufacturing industries and $6.5
million in average annual receipts for
nonmanufacturing industries. SBA
established 500 employees as the anchor
size standard for the manufacturing
industries at SBA’s inception in 1953
and shortly thereafter established a $1
million average annual receipts size
standard for the nonmanufacturing
industries. The receipts-based anchor
size standard for the nonmanufacturing
industries has been adjusted
periodically for inflation so that,
currently, the anchor size standard is
$6.5 million. Anchor size standards are
presumed to be appropriate for an
industry unless its characteristics
indicate that larger firms have a much
greater significance within that industry
than the ‘‘typical industry.’’
When evaluating a size standard, the
characteristics of the specific industry
under review are compared to the
characteristics of a group of industries,
referred to as a ‘‘comparison group.’’ A
comparison group is a large number of
industries grouped together to represent
the typical industry. It can be comprised
of all industries, all manufacturing
industries, all industries with receiptbased size standards, or some other
logical grouping. For purposes of this
proposed rule, one comparison group
comprises industries with the
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 17, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28590-28604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4591]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2006 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 28590]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1000
[Docket no. AO-14-A73, et al.; DA-03-10]
Milk in the Northeast and Other Marketing Areas; Recommended
Decision and Opportunity to File Written Exceptions on Proposed
Amendments to Marketing Agreements and Orders
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule; recommended decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 CFR part Marketing area AO Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1001.............. Northeast............... AO-14-A73.
1005.............. Appalachian............. AO-388-A14.
1006.............. Florida................. AO-356-A37.
1007.............. Southeast............... AO-366-A43.
1030.............. Upper Midwest........... AO-361-A38.
1032.............. Central................. AO-313-A47.
1033.............. Mideast................. AO-166-A71.
1124.............. Pacific Northwest....... AO-368-A34.
1126.............. Southwest............... AO-231-A67.
1131.............. Arizona Las-Vegas....... AO-271-A39.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document recommends changes to the fluid milk product
definition for all Federal milk marketing orders and is based on the
record of a hearing held June 20-23, 2005, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Specifically, this document recommends maintaining the current 6.5
percent nonfat milk solids criteria and incorporating an equivalent
2.25 percent true protein criteria in determining if a product meets
the fluid milk product definition. This decision also proposes to
clarify how milk and milk-derived ingredients should be priced under
all orders. In addition, ``drinkable'' yogurt products containing at
least 20 percent yogurt, keifir and products designed to be meal
replacements, regardless of packaging, are proposed to be exempted from
the fluid milk product definition.
DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before July 17, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments (six copies) should be filed with the Hearing
Clerk, Stop 9200-Room 1031, United States Department of Agriculture,
1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9200. Comments may
also be submitted at the Federal eRulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov or by submitting comments by e-mail to:
amsdairycomments@usda.gov. Reference should be made to the title of
action and docket number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Henry H. Schaefer, Economist, USDA/
AMS/Dairy Programs, Upper Midwest Milk Market Administrators Office,
Suite 210, 4570 West 77th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435-5037,
(952) 831-5292. E-mail address: hschaefer@fmma30.com; or Gino M. Tosi,
Associate Deputy Administrator, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Order
Formulation and Enforcement, Stop 0231-Room 2971-S 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0231, (202) 690-1366, e-mail address:
gino.tosi@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This administrative action is governed by
the provisions of Sections 556 and 557 of Title 5 of the United States
Code and, therefore, is excluded from the requirements of Executive
Order 12866.
The amendments to the rules proposed herein have been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not
intended to have a retroactive effect. If adopted, the proposed
amendments would not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (Act), as amended
(7 U.S.C. 604-674), provides that administrative proceedings must be
exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section
608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may request
modification or exemption from such order by filing with the Department
a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with the law. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on
the petition. After a hearing, the Department would rule on the
petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States
in any district in which the handler is an habitant, or has its
principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review the
USDA's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is filed not
later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the Agricultural Marketing Service has considered the economic
impact of this action on small entities and has certified that this
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. For the purpose of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, a dairy farm is considered a ``small business'' if it
has an annual gross revenue of less than $750,000, and a dairy products
manufacture is a ``small business'' if it has fewer than 500 employees.
For the purposes of determining which dairy farms are ``small
businesses,'' the $750,000 per year criterion was used to establish a
production guideline of 500,000 pounds per month. Although this
guideline does not factor in additional monies that may be received by
dairy producers, it should be an inclusive standard for most ``small''
dairy farmers. For purposes of determining a handler's size, if the
plant is part of a larger company operating multiple plants that
collectively exceed the 500-employee limit, the plant will be
considered a large business even if the local plant has fewer than 500
employees.
For the month of June 2005, the month the hearing was held, 52,425
dairy farmers were pooled on the Federal order system. Of the total,
49,160, or 94 percent were considered small businesses. During the same
month, 1,530 plants were regulated by or reported their milk receipts
to their respective Market Administrator. Of the total, 847, or 55
percent were considered small businesses.
This decision recommends maintaining the current 6.5 percent nonfat
milk solids criteria and adding a minimum true protein standard of 2.25
percent to the fluid milk product definition. These criteria are not
intended to be absolute determinates of
[[Page 28591]]
whether a product meets the fluid milk product definition. The form and
intended use of the product will be the primary criteria used by the
Department for determining whether a product meets the fluid milk
product. The proposed amendments also would not consider beverages
containing 20 percent or more yogurt as an ingredient in the finished
product or Kefir as meeting the fluid milk product definition. In
addition, this decision recommends removing the requirement that meal
replacements be packaged in hermetically-sealed containers to be exempt
from the fluid milk product definition.
The proposed amendments to the fluid milk product definition set
out the criteria for determining if the use of producer milk and milk-
derived ingredients in such products should be priced at the Class I
price. The established criteria for the classification of producer milk
established are applied in an identical fashion to both large and small
businesses and will not have any different impact on those businesses
producing fluid milk products. Therefore, the proposed amendments will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
A review of reporting requirements was completed under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). It was
determined that these proposed amendments would have no impact on
reporting, record keeping, or other compliance requirements because
they would remain identical to the current requirements. No new forms
are proposed and no additional reporting requirements are necessary.
This notice does not require additional information collection that
needs clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) beyond
currently approved information collection. The primary sources of data
used to complete the forms are routinely used in most business
transactions. The forms require only a minimal amount of information
which can be supplied without data processing equipment or a trained
statistical staff. Thus, the information collection and reporting
burden is relatively small. Requiring the same reports for all handlers
does not significantly disadvantage any handler that is smaller than
the industry average.
Interested parties are invited to submit comments on the probable
regulatory and informational impact of this proposed rule on small
entities. Also, parties may suggest modifications of this proposal for
the purpose of tailoring its applicability to small businesses.
Prior documents in this proceeding: Notice of Hearing: Issued April
6, 2005; published April 12, 2005 (70 FR 19012).
Preliminary Statement
Notice is hereby given of the filing with the Hearing Clerk of this
recommended decision with respect to the proposed amendments to the
tentative marketing agreements and the orders regulating the handling
of milk in the Northeast and other marketing areas. This notice is
issued pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act and applicable rules of practice and procedure governing
the formulation of marketing agreements and marketing orders (7 CFR
part 900).
Interested parties may file written exceptions to this decision
with the Hearing Clerk, United States Department of Agriculture, Room
1031-Stop 9200, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-
9200, by the July 17, 2006. Six (6) copies of the exceptions should be
filed. All written submissions made pursuant to this notice will be
made available for public inspection at the office of the Hearing Clerk
during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).
The hearing notice specifically invited interested persons to
present evidence concerning the probable regulatory and informational
impact of the proposals on small businesses. Some evidence was received
that specifically addressed these issues, and some of the evidence
encompassed entities of various sizes.
The proposed amendments set forth below are based on the record of
a public hearing held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on June 20-23, 2005,
pursuant to a notice of hearing issued April 6, 2005; published April
12, 2005 (70 FR 19012).
The material issues on the record of the hearing relate to:
1. Amending the fluid milk product definition.
Findings and Conclusions
This decision recommends maintaining the current 6.5 percent nonfat
milk solids criteria and incorporating an equivalent 2.25 percent
minimum true protein criteria in determining if a product meets the
fluid milk product definition. This decision proposes that for purposes
of computing the true protein or nonfat milk solids content of a
product, all milk-derived ingredients be included.
This decision also proposes to exempt from the fluid milk product
definition ``drinkable'' yogurt products (often referred to as smoothie
products) that contain at least 20% yogurt, Kefir, and dietary products
designed to be meal replacements that are marketed to the health care
industry regardless of packaging. As proposed, such products would be
considered Class II products and the dairy ingredients included in
these products would be priced at the Federal order Class II price.
Federal milk orders currently specify that a fluid milk product
shall include any milk product in fluid or frozen form that contains
less than 9 percent butterfat that is intended to be used as beverages.
The fluid milk product definition contains a non-definitive list of
dairy products that are fluid milk products. It also sets a maximum
upper limit on the butterfat contained in a product of 9 percent and a
lower limit of 6.5 percent nonfat milk solids by weight for a product
to be considered a fluid milk product. Dairy products that do not fall
within these limits are not considered fluid milk products and the milk
used to produce these products are classified in Class II, Class III or
Class IV depending on the form or purpose for which the products are to
be used.
Eleven proposals were published in the hearing notice for this
proceeding. Proposals 1, 3, 4, and 6 were abandoned at the hearing by
there proponents in support of other noticed proposals. No further
reference to these proposals will be made.
A proposal published in the hearing notice as Proposal 2, offered
by Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. (DFA), seeks to amend the fluid milk
product definition to include any dairy ingredient, including whey,
when calculating the milk contained in a product on a protein-
equivalent or nonfat solids equivalent basis. DFA is a dairy farmer-
member owned cooperative whose members milk is pooled throughout the
Federal order system.
H.P. Hood LLC (H.P. Hood), which owns and operates milk processing
and manufacturing plants in the Eastern and Midwest United States, is
the proponent of a proposal published in the hearing notice as Proposal
5 that was modified at the hearing. As modified, Proposal 5 seeks to
amend the fluid milk product definition to include any product that,
based upon substantial evidence as determined by the Department,
directly competes with other fluid milk products and that the
Department must make a written determination before any product can be
reclassified as a fluid milk product.
A proposal published in the hearing notice as Proposal 7 was
offered by the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF). NMPF consists
of 33 dairy-
[[Page 28592]]
farmer member cooperatives that represent more than 75 percent of U.S.
dairy farmers. Proposal 7 seeks to amend the fluid milk product
definition by removing the reference ``6.5 percent nonfat solids
standard and whey,'' and adopting a 2.25 percent true milk protein
criteria. During the hearing, DFA offered a modification to Proposal 7
by seeking to authorize the Department to make an interim
classification determination for new products that result from new
technology. The Department would then convene a hearing to address the
use of the new technology in classification decisions and make a final
classification determination for the new product within one year.
A proposal published in the hearing notice as Proposal 8 seeks to
amend the fluid milk product definition by excluding yogurt-containing
beverages. This proposal was offered by The Dannon Company, Inc.
(Dannon), a wholly owned subsidiary of The Danone Group, which produces
yogurt and fresh dairy products in 40 countries including the United
States.
A proposal published in the hearing notice as Proposal 9 also seeks
to amend the fluid milk product definition by excluding drinkable food
products that contain at least 20 percent yogurt by weight from the
fluid milk product definition. Proposal 9 was offered by General Mills,
Inc. (General Mills), a food manufacturer that markets such products as
Yoplait yogurt and yogurt-containing products in over 100 countries,
including the United States.
A proposal published in the hearing notice as Proposal 10 was
offered by the Novartis Nutrition Corporation (Novartis). Novartis is a
company that develops and manufactures products, including milk based
products, designed to meet specific nutritional needs. Proposal 10
seeks to amend the fluid milk product definition by removing the 6.5
percent nonfat milk solids standard and excluding formulas prepared for
dietary use.
A proposal published in the hearing notice as Proposal 11 seeks to
amend the fluid milk product definition by excluding healthcare
beverages distributed to the healthcare industry. Proposal 11 was
offered by Hormel Foods, LLC (Hormel), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Hormel Foods Corporation and manufacturer of a variety of food products
primarily for the health care industry.
A witness appearing on behalf of National Milk Producers Federation
(NMPF) testified in support of Proposal 7. The witness testified that
Proposal 7 would close loopholes in the current fluid milk product
definition that have allowed products developed as a result of new
technology to avoid classification as a fluid milk product. The witness
said that the 6.5 percent nonfat solids standard should be eliminated
and replaced with a 2.25 percent protein standard that would also
include whey proteins in determining if the product meets the protein
standard. The witness stressed that whey proteins should be defined as
whey proteins that are a by-product of the cheese making process. The
witness was of the opinion that adoption of Proposal 7 would not alter
the classification of any product currently being marketed.
The NMPF witness stressed that Federal order regulations have
always adapted to marketing conditions and that the current fluid milk
product definition should be amended to reflect changes in market
conditions brought about by changes in technology. The witness
testified that technology has evolved such that milk can now be
separated into numerous components that can be recombined to create a
vast number of new milk products. The witness argued that new
technology has enabled manufacturers to manipulate milk components,
such as removing lactose or substituting whey for other milk solids, to
create new products that contain less than 6.5 percent nonfat milk
solids. This enables manufacturers of the new products to avoid
classification of the new product as a fluid milk product even though
the form and use does not differ from what is currently considered as
fluid milk products.
The NMPF witness testified that Carb Countdown[supreg], a product
manufactured by the H.P. Hood Company, contains whey and has a reduced
lactose content that results in its composition below 6.5 percent
nonfat milk solids standard. According to the witness, two market
research studies suggest that the product is similar in form and use to
traditional fluid milk. Relying upon a market study conducted by IRI, a
market research firm, the witness related that 98.4 percent of Carb
Countdown[supreg] sales are purchased as a substitute for fluid milk
while only 1-percent of its sales are represented as an expansion of
the fluid milk market.
The NMPF witness was of the opinion that classifying a product on
the basis of protein is appropriate because protein is the highest
valued skim component in the marketplace. The witness testified that a
2.25 percent protein standard is the appropriate equivalent of the
current 6.5 percent nonfat milk solids standard. The witness asserted
that protein has the most value to producers, processors and consumers
because it contributes to milk nutrition, flavor and texture. While the
witness was of the opinion that all dairy-derived ingredients should be
used in computing the true protein standard of a product, the witness
did not believe whey and whey product ingredients should be priced at
the Class I price. The witness maintained that the use of whey and whey
products should not exclude a product from the fluid milk product
definition because manufactures are using whey in their new products to
avoid a fluid milk product classification. The witness also noted that
instead on relying upon the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
standard, the Department should provide its own definition of whey.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of NMPF reiterated the
positions they testified to at the hearing. The brief asserted that
adoption of a protein standard would close regulatory loopholes that
prevent products developed as a result of new technology from avoiding
classification as a fluid milk product. According to the brief,
adoption of a true protein standard merely changes the way milk
proteins are accounted for and would not change the classification of
any product. However, these changes would capture those products
currently formulated to avoid being classified as a fluid milk product.
A witness from Dairy Farmers of America (DFA), appearing on behalf
of DFA and Dairylea Cooperative, Inc., (DLC), testified in support of
NMPF's Proposal 7 and Proposal 2. DFA is a dairy-member owned
cooperative with 12,800 member farms located in 49 states. DLC is a
dairy-member owned cooperative with 2,400 member farms located in seven
states.
The DFA/DLC witness was of the opinion that the purpose of the
hearing was to refine the fluid milk product definition to reflect
current market conditions brought about by technological innovations to
ensure that dairy farmers are equitably paid for their milk. The
witness testified that dairy processing technology, such as ultra
filtration and milk component fractionalization, has enabled new
products to be developed that were not foreseen when the current
classification definition was last considered.
The DFA/DLC witness testified that the current fluid milk product
definition does not recognize the value of dairy proteins in the
development of new products and therefore does not classify and
subsequently price these new products appropriately. The witness
claimed that manufacturers formulate
[[Page 28593]]
their products so as to contain less than 6.5 percent total nonfat milk
solids to avoid a Class I use of milk even though these products
compete directly with and are substitutes for fluid milk and fluid milk
uses.
The DFA/DLC witness was of the opinion that the form and use of a
product should be the primary factor in determining product
classification. The witness said that secondary criteria used to make
classification determinations should include such factors as: Product
composition, a specific but not exclusive list of included and excluded
dairy products, product substitutability and enhancement of producer
revenue. The witness argued that eliminating the current total nonfat
milk solids standard and replacing it with an equivalent milk protein
standard would better reflect the demand for dairy proteins in the
marketplace.
The DFA/DLC witness offered a modification to Proposal 7 that the
witness said would provide the Department with latitude for classifying
future products which are a result of new technology. The witness
explained that the modification would allow the Department to make an
interim classification decision for a new product and then have up to
one year to hold a public hearing to determine the appropriate
permanent classification.
The DFA/DLC witness also testified in support of Proposal 2. The
witness said that its adoption would recognize the importance of dairy
proteins in the marketplace by including all dairy protein sources,
including whey and whey products, in computing the products protein
content. However, said the witness, while whey and whey products would
be used in classification determinations, those ingredients should not
be priced as Class I.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of DFA/DLC reiterated
their support for adopting a protein standard. The brief reiterated
their claim that new technology has enabled some products that contain
less than 6.5 percent nonfat milk solids to be classified at a lower
use-value than competitors in the market. The brief maintained that
adoption of a protein standard would more adequately identify products
that should be classified as fluid milk product's in light of new
fractionation technology.
A witness appearing on behalf of O-AT-KA Milk Products Cooperative,
Inc. (O-AT-KA) testified in support of Proposals 2 and 7. O-AT-KA is a
cooperative owned by the dairy farmer members of Upstate Farms
Cooperative, Inc.; Niagara Milk Cooperative, Inc. and Dairylea
Cooperative, Inc. The witness was of the opinion that the development
of new technology necessitates a change to the fluid milk product
definition. However, the witness cautioned that changes should not
capture all beverages which contain milk solids as fluid milk products
because not all milk-containing beverages compete with fluid milk.
The O-AT-KA witness asserted that Proposal 7 should not be thought
of as a fundamental change to the current standard; rather that the
proposed true protein standard of 2.25 percent is an equivalent to the
current 6.5 percent nonfat milk solids standard and should be
considered as a needed clarification brought about by new technological
advances in milk processing. According to the witness, the proposed
2.25 percent standard recognizes protein as a highly-valued ingredient
in milk products and that products with less than 2.25 percent protein
would remain exempt from fluid milk product classification. The witness
also advocated the adoption of Proposal 2 which would include whey and
whey products in the computation of the protein percentage of the
product but would not price the whey ingredients at Class I prices.
A post-hearing brief, submitted on behalf of O-AT-KA, reiterated
their support for Proposal 7. The brief claimed that the adoption of
the protein standard would increase the use of dairy ingredients in
beverages that are not ``in the competitive sphere of the traditional
milk beverages,'' thus increasing producer revenue. The brief also
supported DFA/DLC's modification to Proposal 7 giving the Department
authority to make an interim classification decision if a new product
is a result of new technology.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of Select Milk Producers,
Inc. (Select) and Continental Dairy Products (Continental) expressed
support for adoption of a protein standard as a component of the fluid
milk product definition. According to the brief, Select and Continental
are dairy-farmer owned cooperatives that market milk on various Federal
orders. The brief argued that adoption of a protein standard is a
needed change to reflect current manufacturing technology and does not
fundamentally alter current regulations. The brief stressed that milk
proteins are valuable ingredients in the market and that classification
and pricing determinations should be reflective of this.
A witness appearing on behalf of H.P. Hood testified in opposition
to any changes to the fluid milk product definition. The witness was of
the opinion that the fluid milk product definition should not be
amended in a manner that would classify more dairy products as fluid
milk products unless data is provided which would conclude such
products compete directly with fluid milk and such amendments would
enhance producer revenue.
The H.P. Hood witness asserted that if Proposal 7 was adopted and
resulted in the reclassification of some products as fluid milk
products, the change would only affect a small number of products and
the enhancement of producer revenue would be minimal. If ingredient
substitution for milk occurred as a result of adopting other proposals,
the witness said, producer revenue could actually decrease. The witness
was of the opinion that adoption of proposals which broaden the fluid
milk product definition would stifle product innovation and discourage
the use of dairy-derived ingredients because of the resulting increased
costs to the manufacturer. These results, the witness said, should not
be encouraged by the Federal milk order program.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of H.P. Hood reiterated
their opposition of Proposal 7. The brief maintained that no disorderly
marketing conditions exist to warrant a change to the fluid milk
product definition and that proponents of the protein standard failed
to meet the burden of proof required by the AMAA to make a regulatory
change. The H.P. Hood brief reviewed many factors used by the
Department in previous classification decisions to determine the proper
classification of Class I products. Their list included, but was not
limited to, demand elasticities, enhancement of producer revenue and
product competition. The brief stated that proponents failed to provide
adequate data addressing these factors or prove that disorderly
marketing conditions exist to warrant a change, and urged the
Department to terminate the proceeding.
A witness appearing on behalf of Leprino Foods Company (Leprino)
testified in opposition to the adoption of the 2.25 percent protein
standard contained in Proposal 7. According to the witness, Leprino
operates nine plants in the United States that manufacture mozzarella
cheese and whey products. The witness was of the opinion that a protein
standard would reclassify products such as sport and protein drinks and
yogurt smoothie products that are formulated with ingredients such as
whey and whey products as fluid milk products. The witness stressed
that broadening the fluid milk product definition to account for all
dairy derived ingredients could
[[Page 28594]]
lessen the demand for such ingredients. The witness speculated that
manufacturers may seek out other less costly non-dairy ingredient
substitutes which would result in decreased producer revenue.
A witness appearing on behalf of Dannon testified in opposition to
Proposals 2 and 7. The witness was opposed to the adoption of a protein
standard and to the inclusion of whey when calculating the nonfat milk
solids content of a product because, the witness said, it was not the
original intent of the fluid milk product definition to include these
milk-derived ingredients. The witness believed that adoption of a
protein standard would cause more products to be classified as fluid
milk products even though they do not compete with fluid milk. The
witness argued that protein is not a major component of fluid milk
products and therefore using a protein standard would not be
appropriate for making classification determinations. The witness
speculated that if a protein standard was adopted, it could stifle
product innovation or cause food processors to use non-dairy
ingredients in their food products. The witness also opposed Proposal 2
seeking to include whey proteins in determining the protein content of
a product. The witness said that if whey proteins are included,
manufacturers may look for less expensive non-dairy ingredients to be
used as a viable substitute.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of Dannon reiterated their
opposition to the adoption of a protein standard claiming that adequate
justification for such a change was not given by proponents at the
hearing and that the mere ability to test for milk proteins does not
justify its adoption.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of the National Yogurt
Association (NYA) expressed opposition to Proposal 7. According to the
brief, NYA is a trade association representing manufacturers of live
and active culture yogurt products and suppliers of the yogurt
industry. The brief claimed that proponent testimony was inconsistent
regarding the impact on product classification of their proposals and
stated that if the 2.25 percent protein standard were adopted, at least
one yogurt-containing product would be reclassified as a fluid milk
product. The brief also asserted that proponents did not provide a
clear picture of how Proposal 7 would be implemented. Specifically, the
brief noted that the following were not addressed: (1) How wet and dry
whey would be handled, (2) how whey from cheese production would be
differentiated from whey from casein production, and (3) how products
that meet the proposed 2.25 percent true protein standard and contain
whey and other proteins would be classified and priced was not
addressed.
The NYA brief speculated that including whey in the protein
calculation would lead to more products being classified as fluid milk
products and cause manufacturers to seek out less costly non-dairy
ingredients. The potential loss to producer revenue by substitution
with non-dairy ingredients, concluded the brief, is not supported by
the record.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of National Cheese
Institute (NCI) expressed opposition to Proposal 7 and claimed that its
adoption would stifle the use of dairy-derived ingredients,
particularly whey proteins. According to the brief, NCI is a trade
association representing processors, manufacturers, marketers and
distributors of cheese and related products. NCI claimed that
proponents of Proposal 7 did not identify any specific marketplace
disorder that would be corrected by the adoption of a protein standard
or list any product that would be reclassified if the fluid milk
product definition were amended. The brief reviewed previous rulemaking
decisions where proposals were denied because proponents failed to
demonstrate that disorderly marketing conditions were present.
The NCI brief stressed that use of dairy-derived ingredients in a
product should not automatically qualify a product as a competitor of
fluid milk or that their classification in a lower-valued use
negatively affects producer revenue. The brief further maintained that
proponents did not adequately address why whey proteins should be
included in determining if the product met the proposed protein
standard for a fluid milk product and why whey should be priced at the
Class I price. The brief concluded that whey should be excluded from
the fluid milk product definition because its inclusion would lead to
products being classified as fluid milk products even when they do not
compete with fluid milk.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of Sorrento Lactalis, Inc.
(Sorrento) objected to the adoption of a protein standard. According to
the brief, Sorrento is a manufacturer that operates five cheese plants
throughout the United States. The brief stated that adoption of a
protein standard as part of the fluid milk product definition would
reduce the demand for dairy ingredients, especially whey proteins,
which in turn will result in increased costs to manufacturers and
reduced producer revenue.
A witness testifying on behalf of H.P. Hood was of the opinion that
if the Department found changing the fluid milk product definition was
warranted, adoption of a modified Proposal 5 would be appropriate. The
witness said that adoption of Proposal 5 would provide the Department
with standards to determine if a dairy product with less than 6.5
percent nonfat milk solids competes with and displaces fluid milk sales
which would justify classification of the product as a fluid milk
product. The witness also noted that if Proposal 5 was adopted, a new
product with less than 6.5 percent nonfat milk solids and route
distribution in a Federal milk marketing area of less than 3 million
pounds would be exempted from classification as a fluid milk product.
This distribution criteria, the witness explained, would allow
manufacturers to test market a new product with the assurance that it
would not be classified as a fluid milk product until the distribution
threshold was exceeded.
A witness appearing on behalf of Leprino testified in support of
Proposal 5. The witness was of the opinion that fluid milk products
should only be those products that meet the FDA standard of identity
for milk and cultured buttermilk and products that compete with milk
and cultured buttermilk. The witness testified that the fluid milk
product definition is currently too broad and as a result, has lessened
the demand for dairy ingredients in new non-traditional dairy products
because of the possibility of being classified as a fluid milk product.
The witness argued that many of these new products do not compete for
sales with fluid milk and their use of dairy-derived ingredients should
not qualify them to be defined as a fluid milk product.
The Leprino witness explained that advances in technology have
allowed the creation of dairy-derived ingredients through milk
fractionation. The witness stated that the use of dairy-derived
ingredients has made it difficult to classify products by their
components. According to the witness, dairy manufacturers are avoiding
investing in some product innovation because of the regulatory burden
and increased costs that are associated with manufacturing a fluid milk
product.
A witness testifying on behalf of DFA/DLC was opposed to the
adoption of Proposal 5. The witness said that Proposal 5 would place an
undue burden on the Department in making classification determinations
and would also extend Class II classification to more products, neither
of which the witness supported. The post-hearing
[[Page 28595]]
brief submitted by DFA/DLC reiterated their opposition.
A witness appearing on behalf of Bravo! Foods International
Corporation, Lifeway Foods, Inc., PepsiCo, Starbucks Corporation and
Unilever United States, Inc., testified in opposition to all proposals
that would reduce or eliminate the 6.5 percent minimum nonfat milk
solids standard, adopt a protein standard, or include whey in
determining the nonfat milk solids content of a product. Hereinafter,
these companies are referred to collectively as Bravo!, et al.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of Bravo!, et al., urged
the termination of the proceeding except for the portion addressing the
exemption of yogurt and kefir products from the fluid milk product
definition. Bravo!, et al., asserted that the hearing record does not
support adoption of a protein standard. The brief stated that decisions
to amend Federal order provisions are not made without clear evidence
of disorderly market conditions, the potential shortage of milk for
fluid use, or lowering of producer revenue. The brief also discussed
letters sent to the Department by producers and manufacturers which
urged that a hearing be postponed because more analysis and market data
was needed to justify amending the current fluid milk product
definition. Bravo!, et al., argued that conducting the hearing was
premature and without adequate study and market data on the proposals
that are under consideration. According to the brief, more time was
needed to accurately determine the impact of new milk products on the
marketplace.
The Bravo!, et al., brief summarized hearing testimony from
previous Department rulemaking decisions where no changes were
recommended due to a lack of evidence to support a regulatory change.
The brief asserted that this proceeding also lacked evidence of
disorderly marketing conditions which would warrant a change to the
fluid milk product definition. According to Bravo!, et al., proponents
did not provide evidence of disorder in the marketplace nor did they
substantiate their claims that products currently in the market would
not be reclassified if a protein standard was adopted. On the basis of
such conditions, the brief concluded that the current fluid milk
product definition is adequate.
If the Department did not terminate the proceeding, the Bravo!, et
al., brief recommended that the 6.5 percent nonfat milk solids
standards remain, that the computation of nonfat milk solids not be
made on a milk equivalency basis, and that whey and whey ingredients be
excluded from the computation.
A witness appearing on behalf of Fonterra USA, Inc. (Fonterra)
testified in opposition to proposals that would include milk protein
concentrates (MPCs) in determining if the product met the protein
standard of the fluid milk product definition. Fonterra is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited, a New Zealand
based dairy cooperative owned by 12,000 New Zealand dairy farmers.
Fonterra operates plants within the United States that produce, among
other things, MPCs. The witness stressed that changes to the fluid milk
product definition would increase ingredient costs, discourage
manufacturing companies from using dairy ingredients in their products,
and force those companies to seek other less costly substitutes such as
soy and soy products.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of Fonterra reiterated
their objection to changing the nonfat milk solids standard and
predicted that adoption of a protein standard would make classification
decisions unnecessarily complicated without providing additional
benefits to producers. The brief asserted that the hearing record did
not contain a sufficient economic analysis on the possible benefits
that adopting a protein standard would have on producer revenue or its
impact on the dairy industry.
The Fonterra brief speculated that adoption of a protein standard
would increase the market price for milk proteins, discourage new
product development and encourage the substitution of producer milk
with non-dairy ingredients. The brief noted that the annual growth rate
of soy and soy products in nutritional products from 1999 to 2003 was
16.5 percent, while the growth of milk proteins in nutritional products
only increased 10.1 percent over the same time period. The brief
predicted that if protein prices rise as a result of the adoption of a
protein standard, the growth of soy proteins will likely increase
because they could be substituted for more costly milk proteins.
The Fonterra brief also stated that the hearing record does not
reveal disorder in the market by the application of the current fluid
milk product definition and therefore concluded that amending the fluid
milk product definition is not justified. The Fonterra brief also
argued that proponents did not provide adequate reasoning for including
whey proteins in determining if a product met the protein standard but
not pricing whey proteins the same as other milk proteins. Furthermore,
the brief stated that proponents did not propose a method for
differentiating between whey proteins resulting from cheese production
and whey proteins from other sources.
A witness appearing on behalf of the American Beverage Association
(ABA) testified in opposition to all proposals seeking to amend the
fluid milk product definition. ABA is a trade association that
represents beverage producers, distributors, franchise companies and
their supporting industries. The witness was of the opinion that the
current fluid milk product definition already properly classifies dairy
products and that there is insufficient evidence to warrant any
changes. The witness claimed that any change would broaden the fluid
milk product definition to include products that contain only small
amounts of milk. The witness argued that many new beverage products
which contain small amounts of milk or milk ingredients do not compete
with fluid milk but do compete with soft drinks, juices and bottled
water. The witness asserted that amending the fluid milk product
definition to include some dairy ingredients not currently considered
would increase manufacturers cost of production, result in stifled
innovation of new products and encourage the use of non-dairy
ingredients as substitutes for milk-derived ingredients.
A witness appearing on behalf of Ohio Farmers Union (OFU) testified
in opposition to any change to the fluid milk product definition. The
witness testified that the primary purpose of the Federal milk
marketing order program was to provide consumers with a reliable supply
of safe and wholesome milk. The witness asserted that MPC's,
caseinates, whey proteins and other similar milk-derived ingredients
have functional and nutritional characteristics different than fluid
milk. Accounting for those ingredients in the fluid milk product
definition, the witness said, would undermine the goal of the Federal
milk order program. The witness stressed that if the fluid milk product
definition was amended, consumer confidence in the long established
perception of milk as a fresh, pure and wholesome beverage would be
diminished and would thus threaten the economic viability of domestic
producers.
A witness appearing on behalf of the Milk Industry Foundation (MIF)
testified in opposition to amending the fluid milk product definition.
According to the witness, MIF is an organization
[[Page 28596]]
with over 100 member companies that process and market approximately 85
percent of the fluid milk and fluid milk products consumed nationwide.
The witness stated that simply because a beverage contains milk or
other dairy-derived ingredients does not prove the proponents claim
that those products compete with fluid milk or that such competition
lowers producer revenue.
The MIF witness asserted that previous Federal milk order
rulemaking decisions have required data and analysis to prove that an
amendment is warranted. According to the witness, the proponents of
proposals for changing the fluid milk product definition did not
provide such data and analysis. Along this theme, the witness said that
proponents should have provided data such as the market share held by
products that do not fall under the current fluid milk product
definition but would be included under any proposed change, cross price
elasticity of demand analysis of products which meet the existing fluid
milk product definition and of products that would be classified as a
fluid milk product if any of their proposals were adopted, and an own-
price elasticity of demand analysis for products that would be
reclassified.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of MIF reiterated their
opposition to any changes to the current fluid milk product definition.
The brief urged that if the Department does amend the fluid milk
product definition, it should exclude all whey-derived protein products
in determining if a product meets the fluid milk product definition.
The brief stated that MIF has continuously opposed a hearing to
consider amending the fluid milk product definition because they are of
the opinion that not enough evidence is available to warrant a change.
The brief maintained that proponents did not offer adequate data at the
hearing to demonstrate that there is disorder in the marketplace that
can be remedied by adoption of a protein standard.
The MIF brief expanded their testimony by citing numerous
rulemaking decisions which denied proposals on the basis that adequate
evidence was not presented to warrant amendments to order provisions.
MIF stressed that the mere existence of beverages which contain dairy-
derived ingredients is not evidence of marketwide disorder
A witness appearing on behalf of the National Family Farm Coalition
(NFFC) testified in opposition to all proposals that would amend the
fluid milk product definition. The witness testified that MPCs do not
meet FDA's Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) standards as legal food
ingredients. Furthermore, the witness said, MPCs have not been
subjected to scientific testing to determine if they are safe for human
consumption and should not be allowed in milk products.
A witness appearing on behalf of Public Citizen testified in
opposition to proposals that seek to amend the fluid milk product
definition. According to the witness, Public Citizen is a non-profit
consumer advocacy organization with approximately 150,000 members. The
witness was opposed to any change in the fluid milk product definition
that would, in the witnesses' opinion, encourage the use of MPCs.
Two Pennsylvania dairy farmers testified in opposition to any
change to the fluid milk product definition. The producers opposed all
proposals that would allow the use of caseinates and MPCs in fluid milk
products. They asserted that MPCs are not allowed in the production of
standardized cheese and should also not be allowed in the production of
fluid milk products.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of the American Dairy
Products Institute (ADPI), an association representing manufacturers of
dairy products, offered support for amending the fluid milk product
definition to include milk beverages that compete directly with fluid
milk. However, the brief cautioned against developing a fluid milk
product definition that would include non-traditional beverages and
smoothie type (yogurt-containing beverages) products. The brief
recommended that an economic study be conducted to determine the
possible impacts of the proposed changes before action is taken to
amend the fluid milk product definition.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of General Mills contended
that the fluid milk product definition should not be amended because
proponents did not provide sufficient evidence or data that would
justify the change. The brief maintained that the hearing record is not
clear on how proposals would be implemented or on the impact to
producers, manufacturers, and consumers if the protein standard was
adopted. General Mills contended that before a change is made, the
Department should conduct an economic analysis to evaluate how protein
and products are competing in the marketplace and how the adoption of a
protein standard would impact the marketplace. If a protein standard
was recommended for adoption, General Mills recommended that whey not
be included in the protein calculation, or if whey is included, that a
2.8 percent protein standard be adopted in order to maintain the status
quo.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of New York State Dairy
Foods, Inc. (NYSDF) opposed amending the fluid milk product definition.
According to their brief, NYSDF is a trade association representing
dairy product processors, manufacturers, distributors, retailers and
producers in the Northeast United States. The brief argued that
products produced with the use of new fractionation technology are a
small portion of the milk beverage market. They were of the opinion
that such products are still too new to determine their impact on Class
I sales and producer revenue. The brief also asserted that adoption of
a protein standard as part of the fluid milk product definition would
discourage new product development and would increase costs that would
result in reduced sales of dairy-derived ingredients. The brief urged
that the proceeding be terminated.
A Professor from Cornell University testified regarding a research
study, conducted by the Cornell Program on Dairy Markets and Policy,
focusing on the demand elasticity's of various dairy products. The
witness did not appear in support of or in opposition to any proposal
presented at the hearing. The witness explained that the goal of the
study was to ascertain the extent to which product innovation and
classification decisions influence producer revenue. The study was
designed to evaluate four hypothetical dairy products and test the
effect that a range of classification determinations would have on
producer revenue. The witness explained the study concluded that the
impact on producer revenue of a new product being reclassified from
Class II to Class I was likely to be small, plus-or-minus $0.01 per
hundredweight (cwt.) However, the witness added, if non-dairy
ingredients were substituted as a result of the reclassification, the
study predicted that the effect on producer revenue would be lowered by
$0.22 per cwt. The witness concluded that while the financial returns
from product reclassification could be positive, the resulting
ingredient substitution which could take place would result in a
significant negative impact on producer revenue.
The NMPF brief also addressed concerns articulated at the hearing
regarding the need for a demand elasticity study to address the issue
of product substitution before amending the fluid milk product
definition. The brief asserted that a demand elasticity study would not
take into account newly emerging products, changing
[[Page 28597]]
consumer preferences, and product innovations that could change the
competitive relationships between products and therefore would not
provide any relevant data. The brief also argued that the economic
model created by Cornell University and discussed at the hearing
contained many incorrect assumptions and thus concluded that the study
results were flawed.
The DFA/DLC brief also rebutted opposition to Proposal 7 that
called for studies of product usage or demand elasticity's before
considering amendments to the fluid milk product definition. The brief
asserted the previous amendments to the classification system have been
made without such economic studies and that this proceeding should be
handled in the same manner.
A witness appearing on behalf of Dannon testified in support of
Proposal 8--the proposal that seeks to exclude yogurt containing
beverages which contain at least 20 percent yogurt by weight from the
fluid milk product definition. The witness argued that yogurt
containing beverages are not similar in form and use to fluid milk
products and should be excluded from the fluid milk product definition.
The witness revealed that Dannon currently manufactures yogurt
containing products which are classified as both fluid milk products
and Class II products. Dannon maintained that regardless of the
classification, none of their products compete with fluid milk.
According to the witness these products should all be classified as
Class II. The witness emphasized that unlike fluid milk, yogurt and
yogurt-containing products use unique cultures, ingredients, and
production technology that differentiate them from fluid milk products.
Furthermore, the witness said, the products' packaging, taste, mouth
feel, shelf-life and how they are marketed by their placement in the
grocery store differentiates them from fluid milk.
The witness presented market research conducted by Dannon which
concluded that yogurt-containing beverages are consumed as a food
product and not as an alternative to fluid milk. The witness claimed
that less than one percent of potential consumers of a Dannon yogurt-
containing product consume the product as a substitute for fluid milk.
Additionally, the witness noted that Dannon advertises its yogurt-
containing products as a substitute for snacks, not fluid milk. The
witness concluded from this that yogurt-containing products are
different than fluid milk, do not compete with fluid milk in the
marketplace and therefore should not be classified as a fluid milk
product. The Dannon witness urged the adoption of Proposal 8 to exclude
yogurt containing beverages with at least 20 percent yogurt by weight
from the fluid milk product definition.
The Dannon witness also testified in opposition to Proposal 9
because it proposes adoption of a protein standard that Dannon does not
consider justified. The witness noted that Dannon does support the
proposed 20 percent minimum yogurt content standard that a product
should contain as a condition for being exempted from fluid milk
product classification.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of Dannon reiterated their
hearing testimony. The brief claimed that fluid milk products should
only be those products that are closely related to, or compete with,
fluid milk for sales. The brief stressed that yogurt-containing
beverages are dissimilar to fluid milk beverages and are used as a food
replacement, not as a beverage substitute. The brief noted that in
2004, more than 37 percent of Dannon's sales were from products
developed within the last 5 years and stressed that classifying all
milk drinks with milk-derived ingredients as fluid milk products would
result in decreased innovation for developing additional uses for milk.
A witness appearing on behalf of General Mills testified in support
of Proposal 9. The witness argued that the Department should classify
products primarily on the basis of form and use and asserted that
drinkable yogurt products, while containing milk ingredients, are food
products and do not compete with fluid milk. The witness explained that
drinkable yogurt products were created to meet a change in consumer
preferences for convenience and portability. The witness presented
market research conducted by Yoplait demonstrating that consumers view
drinkable yogurt products as alternatives to traditionally packaged
yogurt and other nutritional snacks, not fluid milk. The witness
asserted that 80 percent of Yoplait drinkable yogurt smoothie consumers
would substitute another yogurt product for the smoothie.
The General Mills witness advocated that the current classification
system be maintained. However, if the Department determined that a
change to the fluid milk product definition is appropriate, the witness
urged adoption of Proposal 9 to exclude drinkable yogurt products that
contain at least 20 percent yogurt by weight and 2.2 percent skim milk
protein from the fluid milk product definition. According to the
witness, including drinkable yogurt products in the fluid milk product
definition would increase costs to manufacturers resulting in stifled
innovation and a shift towards using non-dairy ingredients. The witness
said this would be financially detrimental to both dairy farmers and
dairy product manufacturers.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of General Mills
maintained that ample evidence regarding the fundamental differences of
fluid milk and yogurt containing beverages was presented at the hearing
to justify exempting yogurt containing products with more than 20
percent yogurt from classification as a fluid milk product.
Two witnesses appearing on behalf of the National Yogurt
Association (NYA) testified in support of proposals that would exempt
yogurt containing products from the fluid milk product definition. The
witnesses testified that previous regulatory decisions made by the
Department emphasized that products classified as fluid milk products
should be intended to be consumed as beverages and compete with fluid
milk. The witnesses expressed disagreement with a classification
decision published in the 1990's that classified drinkable yogurt
products as fluid milk products. The witnesses were of the opinion that
in both form and use, yogurt and drinkable yogurt products compete with
other food products, not fluid milk, and should accordingly be
classified as Class II products. They explained that yogurt products
are produced and shipped nationally by a few manufacturers, have a
shelf-life averaging 30-60 days, have a texture and taste distinctly
different than fluid milk and are positioned in retail stores separate
from fluid milk. The witnesses noted that yogurt-containing beverages
were developed as a substitute for spoonable yogurt products not fluid
milk.
The NYA witnesses asserted that if a protein standard was adopted
that resulted in yogurt containing products being classified as fluid
milk products, manufacturers would look for less expensive non-dairy
proteins as substitute ingredients. Furthermore, the witnesses believed
that the increase in producer revenue resulting from classifying
drinkable yogurt products as fluid milk products would not overcome the
decrease in revenue due to the loss of sales from an increase in the
price of drinkable yogurt products.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of the NYA reiterated
their support for excluding all products containing at least 20 percent
yogurt
[[Page 28598]]
provided that the yogurt meets the standard of identity for yogurt.
According to the brief, the 20 percent content requirement would ensure
that only products whose characterizing ingredient is yogurt would be
excluded from the fluid milk product definition. The brief also
indicated that if the Department determines not to exclude yogurt
containing products, then NYA strongly opposes any change to the
current fluid milk product definition.
The NYA brief argued that consumer surveys and marketplace data
provided by Dannon and General Mills, explaining how yogurt-containing
products are fundamentally different than fluid milk, was not
contradicted at the hearing. The brief also noted that while DFA and
NMPF testified that consumers are buying low-carbohydrate milk instead
of fluid milk, they did not offer similar evidence for yogurt-
containing products.
A witness appearing on behalf of Bravo!, et al., testified in
support of amendments that would exempt yogurt containing products and
drinkable kefir from the fluid milk product definition. The witness
argued that both products are compositionally different than fluid milk
and do not compete for sales with fluid milk. Furthermore, the witness
noted that yogurt and kefir products are one of the fastest growing
segments in the dairy industry, providing a large opportunity for the
expanded use of dairy-derived ingredients which should not be hampered
by the additional costs of such ingredients being priced at the Class I
price.
The witness appearing on behalf of Leprino testified that if the
Department recommended amending the fluid milk product definition, then
Leprino supported the adoption of Proposal 9 to exclude products
containing at least 20 percent or more yogurt by weight from the fluid
milk product definition. The witness also was of the opinion that
yogurt containing products do not compete with fluid milk and should be
classified as Class II products. The witness stressed that if these
products are not excluded from the fluid milk product definition, then
Leprino strongly opposed the adoption of a protein standard to be part
of the fluid milk product definition.
The witness appearing on behalf of NMPF testified in opposition to
exempting yogurt-containing beverages from the fluid milk product
definition. The witness believed that these products are similar in
form and use to other flavored fluid milk products and should be
considered a substitute for fluid milk. In its post-hearing brief, NMPF
maintained its opposition to proposals that would exclude drinkable
yogurt products from the fluid milk product definition.
The witness appearing on behalf of DFA/DLC also testified in
opposition to the adoption of Proposals 8 and 9. The witness claimed
that adoption of these proposals would allow more products to be
classified as Class II products, even though they compete with fluid
milk for sales.
The DFA/DLC brief further claimed that the growth of drinkable
yogurt products in the market place has not been impeded by previous
classification decisions and that such products should not be excluded
from the fluid milk product definition because some hearing
participants claimed it would harm the innovation of new dairy
products.
The witness appearing on behalf of Leprino testified in support of
Proposal 10. The witness testified that only products that compete with
fluid milk should be classified as fluid milk products; therefore meal
replacements and nutritional drinks should remain exempted from the
fluid milk product definition.
A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of Novartis stated that
the Department should exempt special dietary need and nutritional
beverages from the fluid milk product definition. The brief explained
that Novartis' products are not currently classified as fluid milk
products due to their nutritional nature, the level of nonfat milk
solids contained in their product, and because their products are only
available through foodservice and healthcare channels. The brief
stressed that Novartis' health care products were never intended to
compete with traditional fluid milk.
The brief predicted that Novartis' products could possibly become
reclassified as fluid milk products
